The Genius of Paul Twitchell
JT
nice. I recommend this text to anyone with an interest in spiritual or
occult subjects.
While reading this book I couldn't help but be struck by the skill or genius
of Paul Twitchell in weaving in so many ideas from so many sources. I
realize now that many of my first contacts with eastern ideas sprang from
reading that single book. No wonder the appearance of plagiarism often
surronds Paul's writings. I prefer to think that Paul simply edited the
works of many and added his own insights to the mix. I certaintly
appreciate what a gigantic effort that must have been.
Paul takes such teachings as soul travel, karma, non-interference,
travellers, spiritual hiararchy, personal freedom, experiences of saints of
all religions, and so on and puts them together in framework that supports
what I believe to be his central thesis of Eckankar: soul travel. Without
the principal of soul travel as the vehical for achieving personal mastery
and freedom, the rest of Eckankar is pretty empty. Soul travel is the
centre piece of this path. All the rest is simply commentary.
Again, I have no quarrel with those that feel that Paul may have been
contradictory or inconsistent. My point is not in shoring up Paul's way of
doing things. Rather, my point is that Paul gave us a wonderful paradigm
for understanding the spiritual worlds and the role of soul travel in
lifting us to them. Personal freedom here and now is the guiding principle
in Paul's Eckankar. The fact that he created an organization which then had
to be nourished and justified is unfortunate. It is here that the excesses
centering around the Living Eck Master have their origin. In the above
mentioned book, Paul speaks more of the "spiritual travellers" - plural i.e.
more than one spiritual traveller. Paul does not deny that individuals can
do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with
no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a better
way - but definitely not the only way. Talk of the LEM being the only way
in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM. But I
digress. In my opinion the value in the book is that the individual, soul
travel, the role of karma, the spiritual hierarchy, and freedom here and now
are valuable concepts, and remain among my favourites in the lessons I have
learned in Paul Twitchell's Eckankar.
Regards,
JT
Galuuk
speaks with insight and honesty. That he was reminded how the book had
originally spurred his interest in many paranormal concepts and ideas is
interesting. It's refreshing to see him acknowledge that. That he is able to
see how "soul travel" is the principle overriding theme goes miles toward
seeing that JT himself has captured the essence of Paul's message.
Moments such as these make all the hours spent in A.R.E. worth every second.
His post is as follows:
Joey
At the end of information there is knowledge.....
At the end of knowledge there is Wisdom.....
At the end of Wisdom there is Love.....
Nathan Zafran
The fact that he created an organization which then had
>to be nourished and justified is unfortunate. It is here that the excesses
>centering around the Living Eck Master have their origin. In the above
>mentioned book, Paul speaks more of the "spiritual travellers" - plural i.e.
>more than one spiritual traveller. Paul does not deny that individuals can
>do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with
>no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a better
>way - but definitely not the only way. Talk of the LEM being the only way
>in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM.
This paragraph demonstrates that although JT is paying due respect to
Paul Twitchell, he shows complete lack of understanding of basic
aspects of Eckankar.
The first sentence above is totally incorrect.
Also the rest of the paragraph is a generalization which does not
explain the role of the Living ECK Master or the Mahanta in regards
the initiatory process, both inner and outer. While some individuals
can do "it" on their own, "it" meaning self and God-realization, this
"it" refers to maybe 0.001% of all spiritual seekers who need no
guides, no leaders, no roadmaps, nothing whatsoever. The vast majority
need help, and the Inner Master, which is the Mahanta, not a person,
but a manifestation of God Itself, with the power of activating the
inner spiritual centres via regular step by step initiations, guidance
24 hours a day, protection,, etc. The nourishment is via the inner
channels.
This nourishment, while offered to all souls in the universe, because
the Mahanta is a universal manifestation not exclusive to Eckankar,
yet, via the ECK teachings, through membership, offers an
extraordinary extra amount of this nourishment. One doesn't have to
believe this, because on the surface, it might be meaningless. It has
simply to be experiences by those who first studied it on ther own,
then made the committment to join, and found a new energy enter their
lives. Joining fulfulls a spiritual law of committmnent to following a
teacher. It's as simple as studying the piano, as an example, on one's
own. There is a reasonable wide scope of learning that can take place.
Maybe one in a million will become a master pianist that way. But find
a good teacher, and, bingo, an new energy takes over, and learning far
beyond what was accomplished becomes possible. During this
apprenticeship, the teacher gives the student more and more
responsibility (a.k.a. initiations), which means more effort, but with
this effort comes more mastery, until the student reaches the limit of
his ability according to his innate talents, and his non-innate best
efforts.
The teachings of Eckankar, with the Mahanta, the Inner Master, and
Living ECK Master, the outer master or teacher, with the powerful gift
of the initiations gradually given, plus the backup of the countless
masters of the Vairagi to assist us, we have a definitive path to God
that is unmatched anywhere. Soul has the choice to find its own path,
or do it alone without any path. These same masters and the same
Mahanta will assist all souls, period. Joining Eckankar only adds a
greater dimension to one's spiritual life, in direct proportion to the
degree of power of the source of this assistance. Other paths also
offer a similar type of backup, For some chelas, that energy is more
condusive to spiritual unfoldment than Eckankar. There is a path for
everyone.
In ECK,
Nathan
J T
news:37b9742a...@news.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com...
> This paragraph demonstrates that although JT is paying due respect to
> Paul Twitchell, he shows complete lack of understanding of basic
> aspects of Eckankar.
Sorry about that, but as I have said before, I am not an Eckist. Therefore
I do not pretend to speak for Eckankar. However, I will share such insights
as I may have. Perhaps others can fill in the gaps of what I have missed.
Thinking back on it now, I remember when I got my notice from the
Eckankar organization in Menlo Park, that I was eligible for initiation,
I thought about it but declined. I could not subject myself to any
living master. Not then, not now. If I follow Paul's example where he
talks of himself as a "cliff hanger", part of what I liked about Paul
was the freedom he had to grow in his own way.
I also studied the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda which I hold
in highest regard. However, when I had finished all the discourses
from them and was eligible for initiation into Kriya Yoga, I declined
there too. Unfortunately, Self Realization Fellowship (the organization)
requires that the Kriyaban (chela, initiate, etc.) sign a pledge of loyalty
to
the paith. My heart sank, since I knew that I could never do that.
I will never limit my growth by allying myself with any external
organization. I am quite content as I am. There have been
other organizations that have offered me initiation of some kind,
but I have declined in every instance. (By the way, I have since
been initiated into Kriya Yoga by someone who did not require a
pledge of loyalty. On being initiated I promptly declined the
offer to associate with the master giving the initiation. My path
is personal and private).
But for others, it is their call. I don't think any more or any less of
anyone
who decides in a manner different from myself.
<snip>
> The teachings of Eckankar, with the Mahanta, the Inner Master, and
> Living ECK Master, the outer master or teacher, with the powerful gift
> of the initiations gradually given, plus the backup of the countless
> masters of the Vairagi to assist us, we have a definitive path to God
> that is unmatched anywhere. Soul has the choice to find its own path,
> or do it alone without any path. These same masters and the same
> Mahanta will assist all souls, period. Joining Eckankar only adds a
> greater dimension to one's spiritual life, in direct proportion to the
> degree of power of the source of this assistance
<snip>
Kinda of scary, but I can't help agreeing with Nathan on the spirit
of what is written here. However, I have made a choice not to
take part of any formal organization. I understand the common
sense notion that it is easier to progress with someone's help. However,
it is equally possible to get duped and abused by someone as well.
I prefer to err on the side of caution. I prefer to rely exclusively on
the inner master, my higher self. I can attest to receiving help both
on the inner and the outer all my life. Therefore I do not feel
deprived in any way. If I need to spend a longer period of time to
achieve the prize than so be it. I am quite content with the results
I have achieved to date. Nathan however is quite right in pointing
out that Eckankar (the organization) has a set of services available
to the aspirant. I can't comment as to the claimns that are made.
My testament for others, is that it is possible
to avail oneself of inner and outer guidance without being part
of a formal organization. The inner master is there regardless of
our image of it. Outer guidance is available simply by being open.
However, the outer guidance can be very dangerous because invariably
we are dealing with human beings. Humans by definition are imperfect
and will invariably disappoint you. The more one is put on some
pedastal the more likely we will be disappointed. Therefore, I
feel it is better to follow the principal of charity as explained by
Paul - impersonal good will. I treat everyone as strangers - even
family members. As a result I hope that my actions translate
as a degree of of courtesy and consideration which is often in
contrast to the boredom and contempt we feel when we think
we know some one. I don't believe in all the talk of
unconditional LOVE being bandied about. Maybe some know
what they mean by that, I do not. I remember the expression
"cast not your perls to swine, lest they should trample you".
In other words, Paul IMO was right, charity is the best way
we have for associating with others, leave whatever your
definition of love may be for a select few.
Let me end with Nathan's words,
> Other paths also
> offer a similar type of backup, For some chelas, that energy is more
> condusive to spiritual unfoldment than Eckankar. There is a path for
> everyone.
Now, doesn't this make sense? We all need to follow our own path.
Regards,
JT
Frank H. Weeden
I want to say that I'm enjoying this thread, as it is
similar to how I walk the path of Eckankar. I really
like your approach and appreciate your honesty and
willingness to share, JT. Thanks. :-)
In Charity and the
Light & Sound,
Frank
radcoin
> I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very
>
> Paul takes such teachings as soul travel, karma, non-interference,
> travellers, spiritual hiararchy, personal freedom, experiences of saints of
> all religions, and so on and puts them together in framework that supports
> what I believe to be his central thesis of Eckankar: soul travel. Without
> the principal of soul travel as the vehical for achieving personal mastery
> and freedom, the rest of Eckankar is pretty empty. Soul travel is the
> centre piece of this path. All the rest is simply commentary.
JT, I agree with your perceptions. While many feel the outer teaching is the all
important of Eckankar, I feel that it's truly an individual path. Once in the
soul travel state, all of the Earth values are forgotten and fall away any ways.
> mentioned book, Paul speaks more of the "spiritual travellers" - plural i.e.
> more than one spiritual traveller. Paul does not deny that individuals can
> do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with
> He just offers the spiritual traveller as a better
> way - but definitely not the only way. Talk of the LEM being the only way
> in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM.
I traveled at length in the presence of a Master soul (one Paul called a
"Spiritual Traveler") and ONLY when he was near. All other attempts to travel
out of body (other than my first contact at 2-1/2 years old) resulted in Astral
Projection at best. Therefore I believe a qualified teacher is absolutely
necessary. For an initiated Eckist, it's the Living Eck Master. For others in
other groups, its their master.
I have seen Paul several times on the inner planes while in the company of my
teacher (who incidently discredited Paul as swaying from the true teaching, even
though paul listed him as an Eck Master) and I know from personal experience
that Twitch did have the ability to soul travel. Sadly I never had any
experiences at all with Harold of Darwin. I've read where others have, however.
So attracting a true teacher is paramount in having a true soul travel
experience. (And once started, he came every day afterwards, until he had taken
you as high as I would allow him.) For whatever it's worth, nothing I was shown
in the inner worlds looked like Paul's Tiger Fang, but exactly like Robert
Monroe description of various places. However Paul's description of Agam Des,
and other sites of the Varagi Brotherhood (such as Retz on Venus) were the first
places I was taken. So, at least for those who feel he was a complete fake, he
had gotten that far at least. And, I suspect, much, much farther.
In my own experience, I found that the individual must first open the third eye
to attract the teacher, without doing this no teacher will aid you as you are as
the student of yet is not ready. Once the third eye opens, all the rest is
unimportant. If Gopal Das taught me anything, it was no one else has mastery
over me, (including him) that I am the one who will determine my future and only
I can find truth for myself.
You can indeed do this without a teacher, but it sure helps to have someone on
the other side illuminating the "dark passage" to freedom.
Irregardless of what Paul wrote about the LEM, personally I've always looked at
the "Living Master" as a person who's job it is to invoke curiosity of the inner
and to a large degree, advice on how to achieve it. In that aspect, I tend to
agree completely with your analogy of Eckankar.
Take care,
Dennis
Nathan Zafran
>I have seen Paul several times on the inner planes while in the company of my
>teacher (who incidently discredited Paul as swaying from the true teaching, even
>though paul listed him as an Eck Master)
If Gopal Das taught me anything, it was no one else has mastery
>over me, (including him) that I am the one who will determine my future and only
>I can find truth for myself.
Even if Gopal Das "discredited" Paul, which I personally don't believe
for a second, but even if he did, he was referring strictly to the
outer organization that Paul created. He started from nothing, and the
teachings at first was a melting pot of many other teachings, of which
the Sant Mat ideas were but a part of, and he channelled the energy of
the Mahana conciousness which goes beyong any ECK Masters. This
mixture of pure spiritual energy and the physical writings went
through a series of metamorphoses over the last 30 years, so that the
outer teachings bears little resemblance to what Eckankar was like 30
years ago, except for the Mahanta consciousness and, of course, the
inner teachings, which, although it also changes, stays much closer
to what we can call the "true teachings".
All that Eckankar does is provide one the tools to get to the inner
teachings, where the light and sound principle is the matrix of the
whole ideal behind Eckankar. Once one becomes established in the inner
teachings, there is nothing furthur to discredit. Initiations play a
major role in this series of events which assists Soul gradually on
its journey home to God. And just because someone posting here says
that it's easier or better for him not to be involved with any path,
doesn't mean that he's missing out on a much greater adventure than he
can possibly imagine. It simply means that it fits his own version of
reality better and is more in his comfort zone. The hierarchical
structure of the inner teachings is designed for Soul to have
initiations in the light and sound, and with the Mahanta as the chief
agent of Sugmad. To speak of Eckankar is to speak of an energy that is
the most natural way back to God, much more so than the much more
difficult practises of most of the other eastern teachings which
require fasting, special diets, and abstinence from sex and other
pleasures, not to mention inordinate amounts of time spent in
meditation which is not possibe for most people. Eckankar is for the
person active in the world. Still, it's not for everyone.
And, if Gopal were to venture an opinion of Eckankar today, I'm sure
he would agree that it's much closer to the "true teaching" or the
"true path" than ever in its history. But it's still an organization,
and will never be the equal of the inner teachings, which have been
going on for millions of years. Nevertheless, it's worthy of respect,
even though sometimes people working at the head office make mistakes
now and then. The main focus is still fulfilling the mission of the
Mahanta which is to help Souls everywhere who are ready for the ECK
teachings find their way back to God.
In the Light and Sound of ECK,
Nathan
Rich
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:48:19 GMT, "JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
>
> The fact that he created an organization which then had
> >to be nourished and justified is unfortunate. It is here that the excesses
> >centering around the Living Eck Master have their origin. In the above
> >more than one spiritual traveller. Paul does not deny that individuals can
> >do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with
> >way - but definitely not the only way. Talk of the LEM being the only way
> >in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM.
>
> Paul Twitchell, he shows complete lack of understanding of basic
> aspects of Eckankar.
his sometimes incredible narrow mindedness and seeming inability to
allow others the freedom of their beliefs. He frequently blunders into
reasonable critiques, blindly swinging his sword with a lack of
compassion and understanding that discredits Eckankar and Eckists much
more than the critique itself.
While he is free and likely will continue to do so, once in a while I
feel like expressing my opinion of his tactics. Some are as trollish as
some of the detractors.
While I respect him, and his intentions, I cringe at these methods.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
>
> I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very
> occult subjects.
<snip>
> Without
> the principal of soul travel as the vehical for achieving personal mastery
> and freedom, the rest of Eckankar is pretty empty.
I wouldn't go _that_ far.:) I feel that the doctrine and tenets of
Eckankar are at least as rich and helpful to spiritual growth as any
other path to God.
> Soul travel is the
> centre piece of this path.
Being taught the ability to consciously expand ones awareness is what
makes the path personal. This takes the 'learning' beyond the
organization itself.
> Rather, my point is that Paul gave us a wonderful paradigm
> for understanding the spiritual worlds and the role of soul travel in
> lifting us to them. Personal freedom here and now is the guiding principle
> in Paul's Eckankar.
I think that this principle is what attracts many to this teaching, but
accepting the associated responsibility of that freedom is a quantum
leap that many have difficulty with.
> The fact that he created an organization which then had
> to be nourished and justified is unfortunate.
I feel fortunate that I came to meet him thru that organization. The
book that you so highly recommend is a product of that organization. I
don't feel a need to justify it beyond the fact that is has been
immensely helpful to my spiritual growth. In an imperfect and evolving
world it serves it's function.
> It is here that the excesses
> centering around the Living Eck Master have their origin.
Nah,;-) it's just as much in the imperfect, dualistic aspect of the
human being, IMO.
> In the above
> mentioned book, Paul speaks more of the "spiritual travellers" - plural i.e.
> more than one spiritual traveller. Paul does not deny that individuals can
> do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with
> no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a better
> way - but definitely not the only way. Talk of the LEM being the only way
> in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM.
I agree; while at the same time see that initially, many, if not most
people need an absolutist, authoritarian approach. So I tend to be not
as critical of that type of rhetoric. I can personally take a higher
viewpoint but allow that each individual will construct their own path
to reach their own higher viewpoint as soul. Is a master/slave,
absolute obedience approach less of a valid lesson than assuming a
mastership role for oneself?:-O
Narrow viewpoints rail against both, while Soul is free.
Nathan Zafran
>> This paragraph demonstrates that although JT is paying due respect to
>> Paul Twitchell, he shows complete lack of understanding of basic
>> aspects of Eckankar.
>
>It's just his _opinion._ Nathan's response however, again demonstrates
>his sometimes incredible narrow mindedness and seeming inability to
>allow others the freedom of their beliefs.
It's not a question of not allowing others freedom of beliefs. I have
a perfect right to state that someone shows lack of understanding. If
that is equated to "trollish" behaviour or discrediting Eckankar or
Eckists because I have the courage to make such statements, well then,
Rich, I allow you the same right to express your feelings, and it
doesn't offend me in the least. However, IMO, there is a huge world of
difference between what a troll is and what I just stated, or
occasionally state on this newsgroup. It's an Eckankar newsgroup, and
when someone, Eckist or otherwise makes statements which either put
Eckankar in a less than brilliant light, which is the case here, or
make significant errors in describing Eckankar, which is also the case
here, well then maybe I like to state things without sugar coating,
like others here feel like doing. I just tell it how I sees it. And if
people don't like that, too bad. But I do respect you for your critism
of me, and I do admit that sometimes I come across a bit strong. It's
just my nature to defend the Eck teachings with a bit of
"fundamentalist zeal" to quote a famous Eckist.
It's one thing to disagree like a troll, just to cause trouble and
disrupt. It's another thing to be a little aggressive in expressing
oneself. I get enough letters in an average month to testify that a
goodly nunber of people like the way I express myself both here and on
the chat lines.
He frequently blunders into
>reasonable critiques,
reasonable or unreasonable, I have a right to disagree.
blindly swinging his sword
a pretty angry statement here. I don't see it as blind at all but very
deliberate.
with a lack of
>compassion and understanding
I have more compassion for making sure that newcomers don't get the
wrong idea about Eckankar than I have compassion to those who make
statements that are not in line with the present ECK teachings. As
far as understanding is concerned, that's not something I can prove to
you., It's a personal thing what people read and comes from one's own
background. I've posted hundreds of things that some people called me
stupid over and others said it was the most brilliant thing they read
in a long time. Go figure.
that discredits Eckankar and Eckists much
>more than the critique itself.
Your opinion only.
>
>While he is free and likely will continue to do so, once in a while I
>feel like expressing my opinion of his tactics. Some are as trollish as
>some of the detractors.
Again, your opinion, and a pretty strong one at that. I could take you
to task for this, because it's a far more negative critique of me than
I made towards J.T. which was very mild in comparison. I wasn't
lambasting him by any means, and if you read his response to my post,
he didn't see me as such a horrible person as you did. But each to his
own.
Rich, you simply don't resonate with my way of expressing myself. A
fair number of Eckist, mainly on a.r.e. and a few on the chat lines
feel the same. About 10 times that number feel the exact opposite. I
can't please everyone, and I'm not interested in pleasing anyone. I am
interested in being the most perfect vehicle for the ECK that I can
possibly be, and I do it, not all the time, by any means, and hardly
ever in my private life, but here, particularly on a.r.e, and
occasionally on the chat lines, with a persona which is
that of a strong defender of the ECK teachings, and that's the way it
is.
>
>While I respect him, and his intentions, I cringe at these methods.
And while I respect Rich's assessment of me, I disagree with some of
what he says, yet I hold no anger whatsoever towards him. He is a
fellow Eckist and has a perfect right to his opinion.
With Love in ECK,
Nathan
Sharon
"JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
> I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very nice. I recommend this text to anyone with an interest in spiritual or occult subjects.
Don't know if I still have that around...BUT...these worlds
aren't so "secret," nor is paul twitchell's "religion" the
"key."
>
> While reading this book I couldn't help but be struck by the skill or >genius of Paul Twitchell in weaving in so many ideas from so many >sources.
Skill and genius? He had a library card, JT.
I've got half a dozen of them, you know. But I'd rather buy
books, to be honest.
> I realize now that many of my first contacts with eastern ideas sprang >from reading that single book.
My first contacts with eastern ideas probably sprang from reading
the World Book Encyclopedia in third & fourth grades...yes, the
whole thing, cover to cover...
But my first *conscious* recollection is reading Alan Watts in
tenth grade. Possibly ninth grade...
And...possibly many of my contacts with "eastern" ideas also came
in high school, reading the American Romanticists such as Emerson,
Thoreau, Whitman, Melville, Hawthorne, Poe...a bunch of them had
a "Transcendental Club" ... they studied & discussed many eastern
works and ideas, as well as somewhat "nonconformist" Christian
authorities...I remember the latter, because when I was working for
the Lutheran Parish last year, a Christian newsletter quote source
quoted several by Fenelon, who I'd never heard of, but I thought the
quotes were excellent, and looked him up...
Not to mention, well...I always loved sci-fi, and even horror!
And "that" is probably why eckankar seems to "resonate" with so
many...not because of any past lives with a "master," but simply
as a result of living on earth, going to school, and reading...
> No wonder the appearance of plagiarism often surronds Paul's writings. I prefer to think that Paul simply edited the
> works of many and added his own insights to the mix. I certaintly
> appreciate what a gigantic effort that must have been.
It's more than the "appearance" of plagiarism, JT. As <giggle>
Harold Klemp says...if it looks like a talk, walks like a duck,
talks like a duck, smells like a duck, etc., well...it's a duck!
(That's paraphrased...he was referring to religion, and saying
that eckankar WAS one.)
I like your use of the phrase "I prefer to think..."
You know...I'd like to give twitchell the benefit of the doubt,
too. If Gail had cared about him and not just money and power,
she would have encouraged him to develop and polish his OWN
writing and spirituality, and not just pushed him into starting a
cult, and declaring himself God-On-Earth.
He had quite an imagination...but it takes perseverance and
discipline to be a success in your chosen field, especially
writing...
He bounced around a lot. Getting mixed up with Scientology and
L. Ron Hubbard was probably the LAST thing he needed...
>
> Paul takes such teachings as soul travel, karma, non-interference,
> travellers, spiritual hiararchy, personal freedom, experiences of saints of all religions, and so on and puts them together in framework that supports what I believe to be his central thesis of Eckankar: soul travel.
A very important of presenting a thesis, JT, is quoting sources
to back up your claims, and showing *evidence*. And...giving
credit to your sources is also very important...
> Without
> the principal of soul travel as the vehical for achieving personal mastery
> and freedom, the rest of Eckankar is pretty empty. Soul travel is the
> centre piece of this path. All the rest is simply commentary.
No...the rest of it isn't empty. It's filled with lies, threats,
and mind-control. It's more than simply commentary.
The use of the words "Soul Travel" is also deceptive. It's plain
old average astral-projection and psychic parlor tricks. And
sadly, well...it's definitely not all "good." In fact, it has all
the elements of the "black magic" that twitchell accused OTHERS of
using.
>
> Again, I have no quarrel with those that feel that Paul may have been
> contradictory or inconsistent. My point is not in shoring up Paul's way of doing things.
Is "shoring up" the same as rationalizing? Making excuses?
Covering Up? Gilding the Dead Lily?
> Rather, my point is that Paul gave us a wonderful paradigm
> for understanding the spiritual worlds and the role of soul travel in
> lifting us to them. Personal freedom here and now is the guiding >principle in Paul's Eckankar.
Personal freedom here and now for Paul Twitchell, maybe.
Especially...economic freedom.
Too bad he didn't understand the ethics involved in freedom,
or respect others enough to grant THEM freedom.
> The fact that he created an organization which then had
> to be nourished and justified is unfortunate.
You'd think God-On-Earth, the Only Chosen Manifestation of the
SUGMAD would have known better, wouldn't you?
Unless...his motives were less than pure.
> It is here that the excesses centering around the Living Eck Master >have their origin. In the above mentioned book, Paul speaks more of >the "spiritual travellers" - plural i.e. more than one spiritual >traveller.
But...the "best and highest" are, of course, "eckmasters."
The OTHER self-proclaimed "spiritual travelers" are either
of the "lower planes," or lying & setting up competitive
cults...like John-Roger and MSIA.
(You know, I don't understand the big problem there. After
all...twitch liked the ladies, but John-Roger didn't...gee,
there was certainly enough to sort of divide up the territory
between them. I think they were both greedy.)
This would probably be a good place for some quotes....but
I'm in a bit of a hurry here...
> Paul does not deny that individuals can
> do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a better way - but definitely not the only way.
Where are all these examples, JT?
He gives plenty of warnings about those who travel without HIM...
the LEM. He says it's deceptive Kal-tricks.
I think you're sort of confused here...where are the "teachings"
to back up what you're saying that Paul was saying?
He DID say eckankar was the *only* way...
>Talk of the LEM being the only way
> in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM. But I digress. In my opinion the value in the book is that the individual, soul travel, the role of karma, the spiritual hierarchy, and freedom here and now are valuable concepts, and remain among my favourites in the lessons I have learned in Paul Twitchell's Eckankar.
Too bad Twitchell didn't just stick to improving his writing,
and doing it himself.
If the LEM wasn't as arrogant and self-deluded as Twitch, well...
Harold would come clean. Get rid of all the garbage, and just
publish & sell sort of generic new-age self-help type books.
But...I think he's afraid of the competition. Like M. Scott Peck.
Twitch's "wisdom" didn't impress many reputable publishers of true
spiritual works, did they? That's why he had to say he was God,
you know.
Same with Klemp. The "Chicken Soup" books are doing a heck of a
lot better than the eckbooks. I think Klemp managed to get one
of his things published in one of them, but I'm not sure.
Sharon
"Happy Happy Joy Joy!!" --Ren & Stimpy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Sharon
From: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/eckankarhistory/
From The Tiger's Fang, Second Edition, 1988, p.
96 (Twitchell speaking directly, not quoting someone else, as he does
through much of the book):
"I am now firmly convinced that cults, religions, and philosophies are
only founded to convince the followers of the invincibility of the
founders...who became the victims of too willing an audience who wanted
to glorify them.
"...Most leaders of society and religions can be said to be the
instrument of banditry.
"...All of a sudden you are the leader and no matter how rich you might
be, some poor, starving Soul believes through self-ego that you need his
last earthly coin.
"The leader exists only because his followers allow him. He does not
have to fleece his flock, but, after all, they expect a certain amount
of it, and if he doesn't, sooner or later they will leave him for
somebody who does."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, I think Twitchell had a really shitty attitude about
everything. I think when he looks within himself (instead of
"compiling"), well...this is what he sees. But he projects it
on to everyone & everything else.
Hugs,
Sharon Â
arel...@home.com
> I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very
> nice. I recommend this text to anyone with an interest in spiritual or
After reading this book it would be interesting if you read David Lane's
book, "The Making of a Spiritual Movement, The Untold Story of
Eckankar."
It's free on this site:
http://www.inlink.com/~rife/eck_main.html
I'd be interested in your opinon after reading this.
Lurk
JT
> > I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very
nice. I recommend this text to anyone with an interest in spiritual or
occult subjects.
>
> Don't know if I still have that around...BUT...these worlds
> aren't so "secret," nor is paul twitchell's "religion" the
> "key."
I'll try to answer some of your objections Sharon. First off, coming
from a Catholic background myself I have to tell you that the idea
of inner worlds, inner masters, reincarnation, soul travel, etc. is all
very secret. Ask a Christian what they think about the above
mentioned topics and I think they will respond with disbelief.
While I can agree that Paul's religion was not necessarily the key
perhaps we are talking about two different things. Let's put
aside for a minute the organization. You said yourself that
Paul took the beliefs of others and published them as his
own. So. If the beliefs were crap then they are crap. But,
if Paul's (so called) stolen believes have some merit, how
does the merit disappear just because someone puts these
beliefs out to (supposedly) make a fast buck. Don't you see?
If you let your personal feelings about Paul and the organization
that he founded blind you, you can't see the beauty in
the teachings he appropriated. Let's not blindly focus
on Paul. Do the ideas put forward have merit on their own?
<snip>
> But my first *conscious* recollection is reading Alan Watts in
> tenth grade. Possibly ninth grade...
<snip>
I couldn't resist commenting about Alan Watts. I think I have much
of what he wrote. Much of what Alan wrote about seemed counter
intuitive until you started to think about. Great stuff...
<snip>
> > Paul does not deny that individuals can
> > do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling
with no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a
better way - but definitely not the only way.
>
>
> Where are all these examples, JT?
>
> He gives plenty of warnings about those who travel without HIM...
> the LEM. He says it's deceptive Kal-tricks.
>
> I think you're sort of confused here...where are the "teachings"
> to back up what you're saying that Paul was saying?
>
> He DID say eckankar was the *only* way...
<snip>
I'll try to give you some examples of this from Eckankar: Key to Secret
Worlds.
1. pg. 10 Paul talks about his ability and the ability of many of his
family members that were able to soul travel at will. At this time, Paul
was not the LEM nor did he know anything about Eckankar.
2. pg. 11 Paul says, " The conclusion which I finally reached is that
anyone can practice soul travel, whether he is under a spiritual teacher or
not, although it is always better to have a guru in order to save the wear
on oneself which would naturally come about in the trial-and-error method of
self-teaching."
3. pg 53 Paul says, "Many oriental teachers will tell you that it takes
years to reach self-realization or God-realization, and that they, the
masters, are the only channels by which it can be gained. Nothing can be
further from truth, and though you learn much from the ECK masters, you will
eventually give up all masters in a natural way. "
4. pg. 56 Paul says, "I am aware that there are many approaches to the
SUGMAD, for nobody has a monopoly on any path. The SUGMAD IS, and of course
soul is, since the latter is a part of God. When we understand this as
truth, then we learn that all a teacher can do is to put our feet upon a
path and point the way. No teacher, living or past, can give us the actual
understanding of truth. It is wholly dependent upon the individual to make
his way to truth."
-------------------------------
In pages 57-60 Paul goes over some techniques for soul travelling. He never
once says, "Join Eckankar, send them your money, get the lessons, and now
perform these rituals". No, it seems clear, that Paul is saying that anyone
can perform these techniques and get results. They'll do better with help,
but they can do it on their own.
-----------------------------------
Beginning on pg 121 Paul gives some case histories of soul travellers. He
does not claim they were all Eckists. He even mentions Paramahansa
Yogananda and his master Sri Yukteswar as being adept at soul travel. These
people were not Eckists. He even mentions Napolean, Alexander the Great,
people in jail, Mohammed, St. Paul, Padre Pio, St. Francis Xavier, and many
others. Non of these travelled with the LEM. Maybe some inner master, I
don't know.
---------------------------------
Pg. 170 Paul says, "The greatest barrier which lies in the path of any
seeker of God is that he may allow too much pesonality, or vanity, to enter
into everything he does in life. Second, he may not learn to look to truth
itself, but, instead, he concentrates upon the vessel or vehicle of
expression for that truth." on page 171 he continues, "When a person
studies under a teacher and feels that he has been disappointed, he will
never settle down unless he finds something that awakens him to find the
real path to the ultimate kingdom of God. The only answer to give these
seekers of false Gods is that they have never followed truth. They have
followed a personality, rather than truth which is absolutely impersonal and
is in no way related to any individual."
Pg. 224 Paul says, "Nobody has the power to judge what is good for another
person's conscience. This is the individual's own superior right in the
kingdom of God. Everyone must have his own freedom of will and thought, and
the opportunity to exercise this freedom."
Pg 225 Paul says, "An initiation is a secret teaching session in which we
learn something that the masses in religion do not have. But this is not
true, for all secret teachings are constantly being given through some
public source. We just have not opend our consciousness in order to receive
any of the secret teachings. The moment that we desire certain data which
is of the so-called secret teachings, we must open the consciousness in
order to receive them. These teachings will then come to us in some form.
Perhaps it will come in certain books, which are not on open shelves,
perhaps the knowledge will come from the other worlds when we do soul
travel, or it might come from th elips of a teacher whom we meet in the
outer form. Then, of course, we may receive it from an inner teacher who
appears against the screen of the mental conscsiousness and talks with us...
etc."
Pg 227 Paul says, "Most initiations are a form of vanity. They make one
feel superior to others, who are ignorant of the mysteries or cannot get up
the courage to launch themselves into the so-called mystical faith. "
Is this what you had in mind?
Regards,
JT
JT
<snip>
> I have seen Paul several times on the inner planes while in the company of
my
> teacher (who incidently discredited Paul as swaying from the true
teaching, even
> though paul listed him as an Eck Master) and I know from personal
experience
> that Twitch did have the ability to soul travel. Sadly I never had any
> experiences at all with Harold or Darwin. I've read where others have,
however.
>
> So attracting a true teacher is paramount in having a true soul travel
> experience. (And once started, he came every day afterwards, until he had
taken
> you as high as I would allow him.) For whatever it's worth, nothing I was
shown
> in the inner worlds looked like Paul's Tiger Fang, but exactly like Robert
> Monroe description of various places. However Paul's description of Agam
Des,
> and other sites of the Varagi Brotherhood (such as Retz on Venus) were the
first
> places I was taken. So, at least for those who feel he was a complete
fake, he
> had gotten that far at least. And, I suspect, much, much farther.
>
> In my own experience, I found that the individual must first open the
third eye
> to attract the teacher, without doing this no teacher will aid you as you
are as
> the student of yet is not ready. Once the third eye opens, all the rest is
> unimportant. If Gopal Das taught me anything, it was no one else has
mastery
> over me, (including him) that I am the one who will determine my future
and only
> I can find truth for myself.
>
> You can indeed do this without a teacher, but it sure helps to have
someone on
> the other side illuminating the "dark passage" to freedom.
>
> Irregardless of what Paul wrote about the LEM, personally I've always
looked at
> the "Living Master" as a person who's job it is to invoke curiosity of the
inner
> and to a large degree, advice on how to achieve it. In that aspect, I tend
to
> agree completely with your analogy of Eckankar.
<snip>
Dennis:
Thanks so much for your post. I agree with your statement that it is
necessary to open up the 3rd eye to attract a responsible teacher. I am
afraid that my experiences to date does not qualify me for the honour. I
must be patient. If not this lifetime, maybe the next...
My interpretation of a LEM is similar to yours - I believe that if and when
you do find a living teacher - that the teacher will be like a finger
pointing the way to the inner master. The inner master is of paramount
importance. It makes sense that it is easier to resonate with a living
being (somebody working at the same level as you) who can nudge you in the
right direction, but at the same time, stay out of the way. That's my
problem with all outer organizations. Before long they saddle you with
discourses, conventions, books, ethics, do's and don'ts, social events,
obligations, yada, yada, yada. After awhile its no different than any other
religion - too busy for any serious progress in your own personal path of
self-realization. Self-realization has to be personal and private if it is
not to degenerate into (only) some kind of social consciousness.
You are truly blessed my friend, and someday and I too may know something
about what you have experienced...
Regards,
JT
Nathan Zafran
That's my
>problem with all outer organizations. Before long they saddle you with
>discourses, conventions, books, ethics, do's and don'ts, social events,
>obligations, yada, yada, yada. After awhile its no different than any other
>religion - too busy for any serious progress in your own personal path of
>self-realization. Self-realization has to be personal and private if it is
>not to degenerate into (only) some kind of social consciousness.
The only people who get trapped in the social consciousness of
Eckankar are those who create that reality for themselves. They are
usually ex-Christians who need a saviour/father figure, a set of rules
to go by, and a reward /punishment system to keep them comfortably in
check. They relish in social gatherings of other Eckists.
I wouldn't classify discourses in the same category, as they do
contain gems in a progressive manner just like any course of study, as
well as many valuable spiritual exercises.
I and countless other Eckists who have been on this path for many
years feel as free as birds, and experience almost no trace of
social consciousness. In my own case, the entire organization could go
completely underground, or disappear forever from this plane, and it
would have no effect whatsoever on me, because I am in synch with the
light and sound itself, far more than the outer teachings or
organization. This is called the "inner teachings", and is more or
less independent of the outer organization, although there is stil a
vital connection. ( a kind of paradox)
Every student of spirituality ends up creating his own path, no matter
what outer path he follows. And he must eventually drop the attachment
to all outer masters and mental concepts of God and life, leave his
mind behind, as it were, and make the journey as Soul into the God
worlds beyond the plane of self-realization. Yes, rational thought
must also be dropped, because the eternal reality can't be
comprehended with the mind.
In ECK,
Nathan
Rich
> And "that" is probably why eckankar seems to "resonate" with so
> many...not because of any past lives with a "master," but simply
> as a result of living on earth, going to school, and reading...
This is somewhat correct. Everyday reasonable people find that it works
well and does resonate within their lifestyle.
> > No wonder the appearance of plagiarism often surronds Paul's writings. I prefer to think that Paul simply edited the
> > works of many and added his own insights to the mix. I certaintly
> > appreciate what a gigantic effort that must have been.
>
> It's more than the "appearance" of plagiarism, JT.
Based on Lane's research abound *5%* of what Paul wrote about Eckankar
is the same as pre-existing books.
> If Gail had cared about him and not just money and power,
> she would have encouraged him to develop and polish his OWN
> writing and spirituality, and not just pushed him into starting a
> cult, and declaring himself God-On-Earth.
All of the above paragraph has no basis in reality. It's Sharon at her
best. Embellishing unfounded allegations. There is no evidence or facts
to support this. It entirely heresay and speculation of the most
disgusting kind. Although it not quite up to her "Paul died during an
orgy with multiple women, dildos, smut magazines, ect, ect.
> The use of the words "Soul Travel" is also deceptive. It's plain
> old average astral-projection and psychic parlor tricks.
In 15 years of study she never got the most basic thing taught from day
one...
Rich
> Every student of spirituality ends up creating his own path, no matter
> what outer path he follows. And he must eventually drop the attachment
> to all outer masters and mental concepts of God and life, leave his
> mind behind, as it were, and make the journey as Soul into the God
> worlds beyond the plane of self-realization. Yes, rational thought
> must also be dropped, because the eternal reality can't be
> comprehended with the mind.
After my scathing comments earlier, I must say Nathan, that you deserve
an 'at-a-boy' for this last paragraph.:)
Rich
>
> Sharon <sharo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
> seeker of God is that he may allow too much personality, or vanity, to enter
> into everything he does in life. Second, he may not learn to look to truth
> itself, but, instead, he concentrates upon the vessel or vehicle of
> expression for that truth." on page 171 he continues, "When a person
> studies under a teacher and feels that he has been disappointed, he will
> never settle down unless he finds something that awakens him to find the
> real path to the ultimate kingdom of God. The only answer to give these
> seekers of false Gods is that they have never followed truth. They have
> followed a personality, rather than truth which is absolutely impersonal and
> is in no way related to any individual."
>
> Pg. 224 Paul says, "Nobody has the power to judge what is good for another
> person's conscience. This is the individual's own superior right in the
> kingdom of God. Everyone must have his own freedom of will and thought, and
> the opportunity to exercise this freedom."
>
> Pg 225 Paul says, "An initiation is a secret teaching session in which we
> learn something that the masses in religion do not have. But this is not
> true, for all secret teachings are constantly being given through some
> public source. We just have not opened our consciousness in order to receive
> any of the secret teachings. The moment that we desire certain data which
> is of the so-called secret teachings, we must open the consciousness in
> order to receive them. These teachings will then come to us in some form.
> Perhaps it will come in certain books, which are not on open shelves,
> perhaps the knowledge will come from the other worlds when we do soul
> travel, or it might come from th e lips of a teacher whom we meet in the
> outer form. Then, of course, we may receive it from an inner teacher who
> appears against the screen of the mental consciousness and talks with us...
> etc."
>
> Pg 227 Paul says, "Most initiations are a form of vanity. They make one
> feel superior to others, who are ignorant of the mysteries or cannot get up
> the courage to launch themselves into the so-called mystical faith. "
>
> Is this what you had in mind?
Thanks so much for these JT!
It's probably not what she wanted to see. She has been attempting to
establish credibility by posting any quote that can, even in the
remotest way, be construed to reflect as negative about Eckankar,
Eckists and Eck masters. The fact is that there are way more like these
throughout the writings, than the ones she selects. She overwhelms the
newsgroup with hers, while Eckist here tend to not post as many quotes
because they are not so locked into the written words and speak from
their practical real life experiences instead.
The Shariyat books are written in a different style and do contain
contradictory statements to these. Yet I can assure you that from then
up to today, I and most Eckist are in agreement with the quotes above.
Hey JT, hope you hang around a bit more. It's refreshing to have
someone who is relatively neutral and reasonable about both sides of the
issues the detractors perpetually raise here.
JT
> After reading this book it would be interesting if you read David Lane's
> book, "The Making of a Spiritual Movement, The Untold Story of
> Eckankar."
>
> It's free on this site:
>
> http://www.inlink.com/~rife/eck_main.html
>
> I'd be interested in your opinon after reading this.
I don't have the time now to comment as completely as I would like. But off
the top let me say this about David Lane's book. I read the book many
months ago and I found it very interesting reading. After reading the book
I don't think I could ever join an organization such as Eckankar. Having
said that, it's a bit of moot point. I'm not shopping for organizations.
So while David's book helped fill in the gaps of my understanding of the
outer organization that Paul founded, I am left right where I started before
I even came into contact with Eckankar. I am still free to think my
thoughts, make my way, walk the walk. In other words, who cares? I am not
a member of Eckankar. I don't care about the outer organization. I do care
about truth no matter who the scoundrel is who promotes it. I believe in
paying for what I get. So I don't mind paying for membership (for a short
time) in some organization that catches my eye. Life is all about personal
responsibility. I don't want to be an Eck bot.
I remember a born again Christian friend of mind loved to use the phrase, "I
am a fool for Christ, who are you a fool for?". My reaction is - "I agree I
am a fool, but I aspire to something better. I don't want to be a fool for
anybody. Not Christ, not anyone. A fool is a fool - give it your own
label. Why consciously be a fool". I am reminded all the time however,
that we all like to play with words. What people are really saying is that
they are percieved by others as a fool, not that they themselves aspire to
be fools. Okay, that's better, I can accept that. The moral here is we all
indulge from time to time in these word games. Sometimes we can be so
clever that all we do is screw ourselves and succeed in separating ourselves
from whatever truth we have. Sometimes, its better to just shut up and let
some one else do the talking. I think I will follow my advice now,
Regards,
JT
JT
JT <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
> I don't think I could ever join an organization such as Eckankar.
But not because of what David Lanes book says about Eckankar, but because of
my own wishes to be free of external encumbrances. In other words, I want
to do it on my own with the help of select individuals that I come to know -
not some pat formula from an organization. But that's just me. Others can
rightly do it much differently and can benefit from their contacts. After
all, I too have been part of formal organizations for short periods of time.
I just don't feel comfortable keeping the tie long term.
<snip>
> I don't want to be an Eck bot.
I was subconsiously reacting to Sharon's use of the term. I don't think
anyone likes people saying they are automatons of some kind. I don't think
people here in this newsgroup are automatons either. I don't believe there
is any such thing as an Eck bot or a bot of any other kind. Everyone is
simply following their own path. I think the idea of labelling someone an
Eck bot is very pejorative and I don't think I was thinking straight when I
used it.
Regards,
JT
radcoin
> Even if Gopal Das "discredited" Paul, which I personally don't believe
> for a second, but even if he did, he was referring strictly to the
> outer organization that Paul created. He started from nothing, and the
It was at a Sat Sang on a top of a hill in the Causal, and he was talking about the
movement Paul started.
Paul was with his Master at that meeting and I remember talking with him after the
meeting. He invited me to join Eck when I got back from Viet Nam. (I joined in 1973)
Incidentally, it was Paul who introduced me to Gopal in 1966 in Indianapolis, In. In
1970 when he said this to me, there was a definite split between the two.
> And, if Gopal were to venture an opinion of Eckankar today, I'm sure
> he would agree that it's much closer to the "true teaching" or the
> "true path" than ever in its history. But it's still an organization,
He never took that position while I was his student. It was my understanding that the
Brotherhood accepted anyone no mater what path they followed.
<rest of sermon deleted>
Take care,
Dennis Webber
Sharon
"JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
> Sharon <sharo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very
> nice. I recommend this text to anyone with an interest in spiritual or
> occult subjects.
> >
> > Don't know if I still have that around...BUT...these worlds
> > aren't so "secret," nor is paul twitchell's "religion" the
> > "key."
>
> I'll try to answer some of your objections Sharon. First off, coming
> from a Catholic background myself I have to tell you that the idea
> of inner worlds, inner masters, reincarnation, soul travel, etc. is all
> very secret. Ask a Christian what they think about the above
> mentioned topics and I think they will respond with disbelief.
You know, I think "Christian" encompasses such a wide variety of beliefs, as
well as expressions of those beliefs, that the use of the word is sort of an
extreme form of stereotyping.
I'd say 99% of my friends have always come from "Christian" backgrounds, and
as early as my 20's, we've discussed reincarnation and a number of
non-orthodox subjects. I'd have to say the only people I've ever noticed
were strongly opposed to it were fanatical fundies like Jehovah's Witnesses,
and Baptists. And on the opposite end, there are fanatical fundies who are
strongly opposed to the possibility that reincarnation doesn't exist!
(Oh...just a comment...my Aunt Jenny is a fanatic fundie Southern
Baptist..really nutsy, not to mention, a HORRIBLE bigot!! But...you know,
her son, my cousin Dino, had a genuine experience with the "Light and Sound"
and a voice, driving through the desert years ago...and I must say, it
straightened his wayward little butt out!! He's still a Baptist...but a
nice, loving, good one...he told me about his experience when I was an
eckie...I knew what it was, didn't say anything, just that I knew...and I was
happy for him! He didn't try to convert me to being "saved" although he knew
I wasn't a Christian.)
I've known many, many Christians throughout the years who believed in
reincarnation, or at least, in its possibility. In fact, I specifically
recall one very heated conversation with a very *strong* catholic not too
long before I encountered eckankar. This catholic was bound & determined to
talk me into believing in it. I kept telling him I could care less, that it
wasn't important to me... and neither was God!! That was in my finally
getting totally fed up with the JW garbage & accepting my doom quite happily,
and just living life as I pleased.....
I know quite a few "older" people, Christians, who have believed in
reincarnation since the 1940's, at least...
And...most recently, I was talking with approx. 18 average Lutheran pastors,
just objectively discussing my cult experience, cults & religion in general,
and I'd say only one of them was strongly opposed to the idea of
reincarnation. A few were quite aware of the circumstances leading to the
removal of the beliefs in reincarnation from the official church teachings.
A few were surprised to learn that, but quite open to it.
But mostly, well...one nice man expressed what *I* feel about it...what
difference does it make, really? He was a sweet, down-to-earth guy...said
his main concern was just helping people with the daily ups & downs of life,
sharing in the joys & sorrows, etc.
Most Christians, including pastors, don't really believe in that hellfire &
damnation stuff, either.
I think both reincarnation & hellfire/damnation are the same thing, actually.
Nonsense, meant to entrap people.
I think *everything* sort of exists in the moment...including "past lives,"
and...what's important is how we live right now. I think even when I was an
eckist, I posted that...whether we have one life or many, we should live as
if we only have one...
No, JT, I must disagree...all these things are certainly NOT secret...one
example, available in any library OR Christian bookstore (well, you might
have to special order it, it's not a best-seller) is Teresa of Avila's "The
Interior Castle." It's about the inner planes...and soul travel.
Oh...the Lutheran pastors weren't totally unaware of "mysticism," either...
and said that yes, perhaps Christianity SHOULD teach more of the mystical
aspects, perhaps...simply to counteract some of the *dangerous* ways that
these very old things can be used, like with new-age cults & stuff...
I was quite open about my *inner* experiences with them...and they had
absolutely no problem with it, and they believed me...same with Father Neil,
the Catholic priest.
Have you done much reading & study in this area, JT? You know...you might
want to check out www.llewellyn.com for one thing...lots of books in this
area...I used to get books from their catalog before eckankar....
Have you ever read Thomas Merton, JT? He experienced the "Light & Sound",
you know...in the 1940's, I believe....
NOTHING is secret, JT. Twitchell got it all from libraries...anyone can!
> While I can agree that Paul's religion was not necessarily the key
> perhaps we are talking about two different things. Let's put
> aside for a minute the organization. You said yourself that
> Paul took the beliefs of others and published them as his
> own. So. If the beliefs were crap then they are crap. But,
> if Paul's (so called) stolen believes have some merit, how
> does the merit disappear just because someone puts these
> beliefs out to (supposedly) make a fast buck. Don't you see?
I see quite clearly that Paul mixed in these truths with a lot of
BAD stuff....to make a fast buck. Of course the beliefs have merit!
But...it's just like if you make a big pot of wonderful healthy soup...
but you throw in a few pieces of poisoned chicken...
If you look at *all* of eckankar, well...it's like a big pot of poison
soup, with a few pieces of *good* chicken thrown in...
> If you let your personal feelings about Paul and the organization
> that he founded blind you, you can't see the beauty in
> the teachings he appropriated. Let's not blindly focus
> on Paul. Do the ideas put forward have merit on their own?
I am not blinded, JT. Please, do not follow the path of the "defenders
of the faith" here and assume that any particular illusion is necessarily
real...<giggle>...after all, this *is* earth...
I'm not *blindly* focusing on Paul...I'm quite aware of what I'm doing!!
And...I talk about Harold, too, don't forget!! <ggg>
If people and the organization they belong to blindly focus on Paul as
a "Godman," well...they end up being unable to see the darkness and
deceit he interwove with the teachings he "appropriated."
If a rat eats poison, it's going to die...whether the poison is served
in those neat little pellet-filled boxes, or mixed in with some peanut
butter...
> > > Paul does not deny that individuals can
> > > do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling
> with no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a
> better way - but definitely not the only way.
Sorry, JT, but this isn't exactly accurate. I've posted tons
of quotes to the contrary.
>
> I'll try to give you some examples of this from Eckankar: Key to Secret
> Worlds.
>
You know...years ago, I would loan out my eckbooks, and many
of them weren't returned. This was one of them! Thank you
for the quotes....BUT...what do they prove? When you take them
in the context of the *WHOLE* of eckankar, well....it just makes
it all look much worse.
It's like Paul put these things in, as well as the quotes I just
posted from the Tiger's Fang, because he was laughing at
everyone who was foolish enough to to fall for what MOST of his
cult teachings say...he couldn't resist arrogantly taunting
people...leaving little hints to show a few people who weren't
deluded that he knew EXACTLY what he was doing...and went ahead
and did it anyway.
The man had NO conscience.
Harold doesn't have one either. Are these quotes in current
versions of the book...or have they been edited out, like so many
other things?
>
> Pg 227 Paul says, "Most initiations are a form of vanity. They make one
> feel superior to others, who are ignorant of the mysteries or cannot get up
> the courage to launch themselves into the so-called mystical faith. "
>
> Is this what you had in mind?
Yes...good stuff. I was threatened with another initiation last
summer, you know. I shudder to think of what would have
happened if I'd gotten a pink slip before I came here to a.r.e.
In spite of my *real* feelings about it, well...I would have done
it....had mixed feelings about my 3rd, you know...I should have listened to
my *real* inner voice, and not let the eckbooks and the HIs I knew
personally talk me into taking it...
That one paragraph above, JT, is lost beneath a huge pile of the
rest of the "eckteachings."
But...thanks for the quotes!! They'll come in handy in the future.
At least, until I find eckbooks I'm missing at yard sales, Goodwill, and
other used book places. They often turn up there, you know...
Hugs,
Sharon
"Happy Happy Joy Joy!!" --Ren & Stimpy
radcoin
> Dennis:
> Thanks so much for your post. I agree with your statement that it is
> necessary to open up the 3rd eye to attract a responsible teacher. I am
> afraid that my experiences to date does not qualify me for the honour. I
> must be patient. If not this lifetime, maybe the next...
If you're interested, I would be happy to email you the trick I used to do it.
(I was 2-1/2 years old at the time.)
> problem with all outer organizations. Before long they saddle you with
> discourses, conventions, books, ethics, do's and don'ts, social events,
> obligations, yada, yada, yada. After awhile its no different than any other
> religion - too busy for any serious progress in your own personal path of
> self-realization. Self-realization has to be personal and private if it is
> not to degenerate into (only) some kind of social consciousness.
Actually I got much understanding out of the Eck materials. In so many ways, I
am deeply grateful to the effort Paul made, he made a wide path for all to
follow when nearly nothing else was available (back then, in the 60's and 70's.
none of this was mainstream.)
For me, had I not gone into Eckankar, I would have completely walked away from
any kind of spiritual life. After returning from Viet Nam nothing seemed to have
any value. Eckankar gave me a renewed hope and purpose to once again begin
seeking the truth.
It is of course a "path", and as such, as any "path" is there to take each of us
from one point to another. But every path has a starting point and an ending
point. Truthfully, at this point, I don't know whether I've come to the ending
point. The last four or five years have offered little to me in the way of
unfolding.
Of late, I've found very little of value in Harji's books, and discourses.
Perhaps it's just me, once I turned fifty, the magic of life seems to have left.
Wouldn't it be great is we could pass though the cave of fire with getting
burned. <smile>
Take care,
Dennis
Sharon
"JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
> radcoin <rad...@npcc.net>
>
> <snip>
> > I have seen Paul several times on the inner planes while in the company of
> my
> > teacher (who incidently discredited Paul as swaying from the true
> teaching, even
> > though paul listed him as an Eck Master) and I know from personal
> experience
> > that Twitch did have the ability to soul travel. Sadly I never had any
> > experiences at all with Harold or Darwin. I've read where others have,
> however.
This is interesting, Dennis!
You know...I really think the term "soul travel" tends to
make it look like something much more than it really is...
It sort of depends on who's doing it, and what they're doing
with it, you know? It can be whatever you want it to be...
Sort of like, if one "believes" in evolution...well, when
cavemen started to talk, did those who hadn't quite mastered
speech worship those who had, and think they were "Gods?"
And...did those who could just sort of naturally talk...did
they get overinflated egos, and encourage their God-images?
You know, a neat thing I ran across on the internet...something
called the Urantia Book.
I've read some parts of it...they have "angels" or something
talking, but whoever/whatever they are, they're not "Gods" and
admit they don't know everything....
One of these days I'll get back to it...I like interesting "new"
stuff...the url's not handy...but you can search for it...and
<giggle> it'll turn up on cult-lists too, and I think I even
may have seen "plagiarism" mentioned....<ggg>
> >
> > So attracting a true teacher is paramount in having a true soul travel experience. (And once started, he came every day afterwards, until he had taken you as high as I would allow him.) For whatever it's worth, nothing I was shown in the inner worlds looked like Paul's Tiger Fang, but exactly like Robert Monroe description of various places. However Paul's description of Agam
> Des, and other sites of the Varagi Brotherhood (such as Retz on Venus) were the first places I was taken. So, at least for those who feel he was a complete fake, he had gotten that far at least. And, I suspect, much, much farther.
I have to disagree with the need for a *true* teacher.
Unless you really want and/or think you need one.
I think we're our own best teachers...and we can learn from
anything & everything, anywhere & everywhere...
What Paul labels as "lower" and "higher" isn't, in my opinion,
either. It's all just sort of "parallel" ... even though it
may appear to be "higher" and "lower."
It's just like on earth...you can have a really fancy neighborhood, then
maybe a freeway...and on the other side is a ghetto, or a garbage dump or
something. Where I live, there's some really nice forest, then a town,
then a smelly landfill, then some nice cornfields...
<giggle> I'm glad I never saw any of that big giant head stuff in the
Tiger's Fang...although I saw some pretty nasty places. Like, my
experiences with the "eckmasters" showed that THEY were in dark
places...and wanted me to be there, too...
Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp have NO credibility, as far as I'm
concerned. Can't trust them at all...they've proven they're not
trustworthy.
But...you know what? At the Philadelphia convention, I saw an
eckposter of a beautiful place I'd visited many years ago!!
Except, of course, in *real* life it was so much bigger, and
brighter, and even more beautiful...
And...sorry, but, although there's always *something* with me here on
earth...out there, well...I travel alone. If anyone was with me, I'd know
it. And probably ask for directions!! Or... recommendations of interesting
spots I could put on the list of places I'd like to visit some day...like
URLs!! <ggg>
<giggle> I wouldn't mind running into Sting again...he's a nice hugger!!
> >
> > In my own experience, I found that the individual must first open the third eye to attract the teacher, without doing this no teacher will aid you as you are as
> > the student of yet is not ready.
You know what? When I first encountered eckankar, one BIG reason I
joined was because it said all my questions would be answered. I wanted to
understand that forehead & top of the head stuff I was experiencing....and
all the other chakra things...
And for many years, I figured it was just "higher secret stuff" so I was
patient, just observed, experienced, and tried to sort of figure it out
myself...because eckankar sure didn't help!!!
I'm glad I got out. I'm doing much better, actually, on my own again.
I think sometimes, well...when the third eye opens, and you get that
kundalini stuff happening, well...what you attract isn't always GOOD!
That's what happened to me, you know!!! It's sort of like a homing signal
for psychic-level vampires...the scent of fresh innocent blood...
Once the third eye opens, all the rest is
> > unimportant. If Gopal Das taught me anything, it was no one else has
> mastery over me, (including him) that I am the one who will determine my future
> and only I can find truth for myself.
So, is Gopal the one who sort of discredited Twitch? Have you run into
Kirpal out there?
> >
> > You can indeed do this without a teacher, but it sure helps to have
> someone on
> > the other side illuminating the "dark passage" to freedom.
I prefer to carry my own flashlight, thank you...
I've got them all over...one in my purse, too.
And I *love* my rechargeable batteries!!
Keep spare charges ones in a baggie in my purse...
> >
> > Irregardless of what Paul wrote about the LEM, personally I've always
> looked at
> > the "Living Master" as a person who's job it is to invoke curiosity of the
> inner
> > and to a large degree, advice on how to achieve it.
Then...why do these "LEMs" discourage questions, and refuse
to answer them? Why do they start and perpetuate lies and
deception?
Sorry, Dennis, I think these "LEMs" just want to STIFLE
curiousity!!
Eckankar, to me, is like all the "bad" in the public education
system, although there *is* good there, of course.
I'm a Montesorri kid actually...love it! But...you know, you
can find Montessori schools who have lost the "true" teachings,
with parents who take their kids there for the "status" and
that's about it. It's a shame.
(Anyway...nice seein' ya, Dennis...hope you're having a nice
summer!)
> <snip>
>
> Dennis:
>
> Thanks so much for your post. I agree with your statement that it is
> necessary to open up the 3rd eye to attract a responsible teacher. I am
> afraid that my experiences to date does not qualify me for the honour. I
> must be patient. If not this lifetime, maybe the next...
Hi again, JT! Hey, don't think of "it" as an honour...the
grass always looks greener (or less brown) on the other side,
you know...and good grief, look where it landed Paul...and
Harold!! It's not necessarily "good."
It depends more on what's in your heart, you know.
>
> My interpretation of a LEM is similar to yours - I believe that if and when
> you do find a living teacher - that the teacher will be like a finger
> pointing the way to the inner master.
I think everyone should do what's right for them...and for
some, really...no teacher is needed. In my case, the LEM
got in the way, and interfered. I did, of course, allow it
to happen...by trusting a bit too much. Let's face it, if
we go through life thinking everyone is basically good and
honest and nice, well...we're in for a big surprise!
The inner master is of paramount
> importance.
I agree. However, I'd like to point out...Harold wrote that
*he* is the *inner master* ... and people should be sure they
were listening to *him* ... AND ... if we thought something
was coming on the "inner" to double=check with the HIs.
It makes sense that it is easier to resonate with a living
> being (somebody working at the same level as you) who can nudge you in the
> right direction, but at the same time, stay out of the way.
Staying out of the way is MOST important!!
But I agree...it's sort of nice to have a friend on the path,
and yes...a REAL Master tells you you're free, and you can do
it yourself...
But...they're always there when you need a hug. And it's true... a REAL
master doesn't want to be worshipped, or followed, or any of the other
eckanstuff I've posted...
REAL masters usually have a good sense of humor, especially
about themselves, and anything they happen to "believe" in...
and hey, sometimes they need hugs, too...
They can even smoke, you know! <ggg> God could care less...
That's my
> problem with all outer organizations. Before long they saddle you with
> discourses, conventions, books, ethics, do's and don'ts, social events,
> obligations, yada, yada, yada. After awhile its no different than any other
> religion - too busy for any serious progress in your own personal path of
> self-realization. Self-realization has to be personal and private if it is
> not to degenerate into (only) some kind of social consciousness.
Isn't it awful? And good grief, thank goodness that even Paul himself
dumped a lot of his original plans when he created this cult...hundreds of
tapes, written reports to be handed in to HIs, hours & hours of
study....people NEVER would have gone for all that stuff...
I must say, Harold (and perhaps his marketing consultants) were damn
good, really!! A quick & easy 20-minutes-a-day, and a simply one-syllable
(or two, with the "secret words" sometimes) "song" ... a membership check
... and KABOOM!! You're SAVED!!
You get stroked for new recruits, though...karmic brownie points...
I still think eckankar should switch to just publishing self-help books
or something...
It's like government bureaucracy...self-perpetuating inefficiency &
stuff...so far removed from what it's supposed to be doing...
Darn, I'm rambling today....
radcoin
> authorities...I remember the latter, because when I was working for
> the Lutheran Parish last year, a Christian newsletter quote source
> quoted several by Fenelon, who I'd never heard of, but I thought the
> quotes were excellent, and looked him up...
Hi again, Sharon.
As you're a Christian, have you ever read "The Hidden History of Jesus and the Holy Grail?" The sub-title is: "The early Christian Church leaders adopted scriptures and teachings that would obscure the truth about the royal bloodline of Jesus."
Interesting read, deals with Christianity being corrupted in the fifth and later centuries by the priests of Rome for power. The worst came when the English version was created.
Some of the points broght out are: that the "grail" not a cup used by Christ to drink wine, rather as the bloodline of kings from the land of ancient Sumer through modern times. That Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (as a Rabbi he had to be married under Jewish law), had kids and lived past the crucifixion. That he was born in a house (he
was laid in a manger, which is an an animal feeding box, very common in those times.) "No room at the inn?" There were no inns in those days, travellers borded in private homes. Perhaps a stable? Nope, worn't any, a stable is an English building for horses. Of the real meaning of "being born again" Jewish boys were "reborn" at the age of twelve
in a "community birth," simular to the modern bar mitzvah. It goes on and on.
I must say, I found the story somewhat convincing. Definitely worth the read, but must be done with an open mind. The author (Sir Laurence Gardner) has credibility and apparently never started out to write the book, rather .. well you can read it for yourself.
The URL is at:
http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/holygrail.html
Take care my friend,
Dennis Webber
Sharon
"J T" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
>
> Thinking back on it now, I remember when I got my notice from the
> Eckankar organization in Menlo Park, that I was eligible for initiation,
> I thought about it but declined. I could not subject myself to any
> living master. Not then, not now. If I follow Paul's example where he
> talks of himself as a "cliff hanger", part of what I liked about Paul
> was the freedom he had to grow in his own way.
Did you read John A. Keel's 1957 book, "Jadoo," by
any chance? Now, that man had some FUN experiences!!
You know...I can sort of understand Paul. We have
some things in common, actually...he probably enjoyed
Keel's book & wished he could be doing it, instead of
just reading about it...
Me, well...I have no problem living vicariously!! I
already have more real-life adventure than I have time
for....
Submission was *almost* impossible for me, too...I
tried...never did it totally, though...
>
> I also studied the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda which I hold
> in highest regard. However, when I had finished all the discourses
> from them and was eligible for initiation into Kriya Yoga, I declined
> there too. Unfortunately, Self Realization Fellowship (the organization)
> requires that the Kriyaban (chela, initiate, etc.) sign a pledge of loyalty
> to
> the path.
I had my first batch of discourses/lesson from them...didn't
you think they were great? I didn't see anything "bad" in
them, or in any of the books, actually...and I really like
Yogananda. When I have time, I plan to go back and maybe *do*
the lessons instead of just examining them...except, well...
actually...I recognized things I was doing there even before
eckankar...and maybe even finish the pre-initiation lessons.
A few things in the books I didn't exactly agree with...and yes,
I saw some "cultic" behavior, but that's just people...
I *didn't* like one mention I saw...where it said that when you
left the path, your connection with your "master" would be
*disconnected* .... however, there were no threats associated
with this, and I felt that somehow, by that time, well...your
connection wouldn't require the guru, and that's where you would
be led, and the *separation* would come about naturally...
I'd have no problem recommending SRF to anyone...I would, of
course, also mention the little "negatives" that I see
personally...however, I feel these may be my own personal
prejudices because of my bad experience with eckankar, and the
way eckankar has corrupted truths.
No way could I recommend eckankar, though!! Or even the "HU"
which was such a part of my very *beingness.* I still miss it...
but no way in hell will I ever use it again...what it was to me
has been defiled by the pseudo-religion that stole it for its
own sick purposes!!!!!!
My heart sank, since I knew that I could never do that.
> I will never limit my growth by allying myself with any external
> organization. I am quite content as I am. There have been
> other organizations that have offered me initiation of some kind,
> but I have declined in every instance.
That's how I've felt since leaving eckankar...
<giggle> You know...found a funny one recently...
check out http://www.ulc.org
I honestly don't know if they're serious...but I think
it's hilarious!! I tried to sign up, but kept getting
"error" messages...
(By the way, I have since
> been initiated into Kriya Yoga by someone who did not require a
> pledge of loyalty. On being initiated I promptly declined the
> offer to associate with the master giving the initiation. My path
> is personal and private).
Now, *this* is interesting....I wonder, did you find the
initiation to be beneficial in any way? If you'd like to
share anything, drop me a private note...I'm interested in
looking at new things....
You know...I recently met a young guy, a pagan-type, who
has shown people how to leave their bodies, just for fun...
we joked about popping into Brad Pitt's bathroom when he's
in the shower...<giggle>...maybe some day I'll pursue it...
You know, kids don't take this stuff as seriously as
"grown-ups" do....I think they're aeons ahead of us on the
"spiritual" scale!!
>
> But for others, it is their call. I don't think any more or any less of anyone who decides in a manner different from myself.
Actually...I usually don't either. But...in exceptional
cases, not because of anyone's particular path, yes, I *do*
think less of *some* people...
>
>
> <snip>
> Kinda of scary,
Yes, Nathan's definitely scary...the personification of those
dark entities he sees here at a.r.e., in fact...
but I can't help agreeing with Nathan on the spirit
> of what is written here.
When the Gnat writes stuff like this, well...that's "eckspeak."
And, to paraphrase Harold on M. Scott Peck, well...I think it
REALLY applies to the Gnat... "There's no love in it." Or...
"spirit" or anything else.
You're new here, JT, but...when I was an eckist, Nathan told me
to do these "protection rituals" against "entities" here, who
other eckists even saw coming out of the monitor.
I told him that I felt his "rituals" were just "magic" and I
had the protection of the Mahanta.
He was quite abusive...said I was being ridiculous...
So you see, JT, you can't really look at an occasional "good"
post by Nathan. That's just one tree in a big, sick forest...
However, I have made a choice not to
> take part of any formal organization. I understand the common
> sense notion that it is easier to progress with someone's help. However,
> it is equally possible to get duped and abused by someone as well.
> I prefer to err on the side of caution. I prefer to rely exclusively on the inner master, my higher self. I can attest to receiving help both on the inner and the outer all my life. Therefore I do not feel
> deprived in any way. If I need to spend a longer period of time to
> achieve the prize than so be it. I am quite content with the results
> I have achieved to date.
Good points, JT! Gee...I *like* you!!
Nathan however is quite right in pointing
> out that Eckankar (the organization) has a set of services available
> to the aspirant. I can't comment as to the claimns that are made.
I can comment on the claims, as well as on being duped and
abused.
I was an ECKist, and a Member, for almost 15 years.
>
> My testament for others, is that it is possible
> to avail oneself of inner and outer guidance without being part
> of a formal organization. The inner master is there regardless of
> our image of it. Outer guidance is available simply by being open.
> However, the outer guidance can be very dangerous because invariably
> we are dealing with human beings. Humans by definition are imperfect
> and will invariably disappoint you. The more one is put on some
> pedastal the more likely we will be disappointed.
And in eckankar, we're dealing with human beings who say
they are the ONLY manifestation of God on Earth...
You know...well, Paul never really came close to being put
on a pedastal with me. With Harold, well...I was working
on it. Felt he was more of a great teacher/professor...and
I felt respect and affection for him, just as I feel for many
people in real life.
I *never* have and never will put ANYONE on a pedastal. Not
really, inside, where it matters. So...I am never disappointed
in anyone. We're all human...
I wasn't "disappointed" by eckankar....just appalled to find
out what it was *really* all about. And it confirmed those
*doubts* I'd tried to overcome & "grow beyond" for so long...
But...I think it's fairly safe to say that yes, many eckists
DO deify their "eckmasters," in spite of their words to the
contrary. That's why they refuse to speak honestly about the
cult...and have no sense of humor about it!
Therefore, I
> feel it is better to follow the principal of charity as explained by
> Paul - impersonal good will. I treat everyone as strangers - even
> family members. As a result I hope that my actions translate
> as a degree of of courtesy and consideration which is often in
> contrast to the boredom and contempt we feel when we think
> we know some one.
I like the principal of charity as explained in the Bible.
Don't you have children, or grandkids, or a dog or two?
You know, I don't look at people as strangers, or treat them
as such...maybe I'm too friendly at times, but you know, I
just generally tend to like everyone & think of them as friends
I don't know yet!!
You know, I wouldn't have the vaguest idea of how to be
consistently impersonal...don't you ever just get that
overwhelming feeling of just wanting to hug people & puppies &
trees & the whole world?
Of course, well...sometimes I make exceptions, usually when
it's been absolutely proven to me that hugging could be
dangerous....and potentially fatal!
I may not *always* be courteous and considerate...sometimes I
feel being rude & crude is more appropriate...<ggg>
I don't believe in all the talk of
> unconditional LOVE being bandied about. Maybe some know
> what they mean by that, I do not. I remember the expression
> "cast not your perls to swine, lest they should trample you".
> In other words, Paul IMO was right, charity is the best way
> we have for associating with others, leave whatever your
> definition of love may be for a select few.
You know...I prefer opals, but generally don't like to
own "things" that I can't share....
And hey, if you get trampled...so you pick yourself out
of the mud & go take a shower...
Unless you're a kid, in which case, you go out of your
way to run through mudpuddles...we were looking at family
pictures the other day, and one of my favorites is one
where the grandkids were two, four, and six...sitting on
the ground in their underwear with big grins, totally
covered with mud...they looked like happy little "natives"...
Steffi was wearing this bright plastic-fruit necklace...
>
> Let me end with Nathan's words,
>
> > Other paths also
> > offer a similar type of backup, For some chelas, that energy is more
> > condusive to spiritual unfoldment than Eckankar. There is a path for
> > everyone.
Barf. The Generalissimo is an arrogant fundamentalist prig
who uses that "energy" stuff to try to hit on females at
seminars.
Remember, he's sitting there chanting "HU" and doing rituals
like visualizing a big white eckanshield between himself and
spooky entities...holding a big cardboard sword....except
when he's spreading spiritual aids with phony luvstuff
sermons to unsuspecting newbies....
Remember, they teach that all paths must eventually lead to
ECKANKULT...and that all service to the SUGMAD involves some
type of MISSIONARY work!!!! The sneaky, subtle kind, of
course...
>
> Now, doesn't this make sense? We all need to follow our own path.
Yes...and our paths should go where WE choose to go...not
where eckankar, or any other cult or teaching, says we
MUST...
Hey, JT, sorry to expose you to a bit of the "demonspawn"
stuff here...
Anyway...it's been fun, and very nice meeting you!!! Maybe
we'll run into each other sometime, somewhere...hope you
hang out here for awhile though, maybe...but I've got to run
elsewhere for awhile...
You know, just my own personal observations...the best &
maybe "highest" place isn't a "place" at all...it's actually
more of a no-place, where *everything* is, sort of...
Anyway...if you haven't been there yet, well...it's nice. I think you'll
like it. I do. But...you know, there are all those other neat "websites"
to explore...it gets distracting...but heck, exploring is fun, too...
Take care, and enjoy the rest of the summer!!!
Hugs to Most,
Sharon
>
> Regards,
> JT
>
>
--
J T
<snip>
> If you're interested, I would be happy to email you the trick I used to do
it.
> (I was 2-1/2 years old at the time.)
<snip>
Please email your technique Dennis. I would be happy to give it a try.
<snip>
> Actually I got much understanding out of the Eck materials. In so many
ways, I
> am deeply grateful to the effort Paul made, he made a wide path for all to
> follow when nearly nothing else was available (back then, in the 60's and
70's.
> none of this was mainstream.)
<snip>
I must concur with you. I kept all my Eck materials. Some books I loaned
to friends and never had them returned. But I still have most of the
materials and my Eck discourses.
I purchased a four books from Harji but I didn't see anything new in them.
I've been meaning to get some current books from Darwin but haven't made the
effort as yet. I am just curious to see whether he has changed anything
since his days in Eckankar.
<snip>
> For me, had I not gone into Eckankar, I would have completely walked away
from
> any kind of spiritual life. After returning from Viet Nam nothing seemed
to have
> any value. Eckankar gave me a renewed hope and purpose to once again begin
> seeking the truth.
<snip>
I too came across Eckankar at the right time. It made me a bit odd in
University when I presented a paper about it in my sociology class. But it
gave me a wonderful introduction to a number of fresh new ideas.
<snip>
> It is of course a "path", and as such, as any "path" is there to take each
of us
> from one point to another. But every path has a starting point and an
ending
> point. Truthfully, at this point, I don't know whether I've come to the
ending
> point. The last four or five years have offered little to me in the way of
> unfolding.
<snip>
I have felt the same way myself at times. I look at where I am in my life
and I wonder why I haven't made more progress. As we approach the final
"lights out" event I remain hopeful that I can have some experiences similar
to the ones you describe.
<snip>
> Of late, I've found very little of value in Harji's books, and discourses.
> Perhaps it's just me, once I turned fifty, the magic of life seems to have
left.
>
> Wouldn't it be great is we could pass though the cave of fire with getting
> burned. <smile>
<snip>
Well, at least you have kept close to your roots (in Eckankar). I have
strayed into many different paths, but I always kept the principles I
learned in Eckankar close to me. The purpose of Eckankar is to prove the
reality of life after death while still alive. At this I am afraid I have
absolutely failed. At best, I have managed to create a fairly happy easy
going kind of existence. I take relatively few risks these days as very
little seems worth accomplishing. I too am somewhat stuck in the doldrums
of life...
Best Regards,
JT
radcoin
> 3. pg 53 Paul says, "Many oriental teachers will tell you that it takes
> years to reach self-realization or God-realization, and that they, the
> masters, are the only channels by which it can be gained. Nothing can be
> further from truth, and though you learn much from the ECK masters, you will
> eventually give up all masters in a natural way. "
I had forgotten all about this. I kind of feel that this is where I'm at right
now. Thank you for reminding me and for your perceptions and your incite. Your
posts are like a breath of fresh air.
Take care,
Dennis Webber
Sharon
radcoin <rad...@npcc.net> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Sharon.
Hi Dennis! You know...I was going to turn off "the monster"
but saw some new posts pop up...this is an interesting thread,
but good grief, even considering I don't read many...it's a
bit much!!!
>
> As you're a Christian, have you ever read "The Hidden History of Jesus and the Holy Grail?" The sub-title is: "The early Christian Church leaders adopted scriptures and teachings that would obscure the truth about the royal bloodline of Jesus."
Sounds like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by I forget who...something
to do with Cathars...descendants of Jesus & Mary M. being the
French royal family or something....
>
> Interesting read, deals with Christianity being corrupted in the fifth and later centuries by the priests of Rome for power. The worst came when the English version was created.
Well...Christian history *is* interesting...everything from
Torquemada to Francis of Assisi...
Actually...it also reminds me of an old Roman thingie I read
in a literature class...some rant about the aimless teens of
the day...could have been written today!!
As far as priests & power, well...boys will be boys, and women
are becoming more & more "liberated!" So you even see it
in Brownie Troop leaders...
>
> Some of the points broght out are: that the "grail" not a cup used by Christ to drink wine, rather as the bloodline of kings from the land of ancient Sumer through modern times.
You know, I never really believed that the gail was an actual
cup...and if it was, who cares? It's all very symbolic...
> That Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (as a Rabbi he had to be >married under Jewish law), had kids and lived past the crucifixion.
Whether they were married and had kids or not (and I personally
hope they were & did...I think that would be very sweet!), I
really think they "worshipped" together! <giggle>
I think there's a good possibility that he lived beyond the
crucifixion...and even possibly came to America as the Mormons
claim...
>That he was born in a house (he
> was laid in a manger, which is an an animal feeding box, very common in those times.) "No room at the inn?" There were no inns in those days, travellers borded in private homes. Perhaps a stable? Nope, worn't any, a stable is an English building for horses.
You know, now that I think about it...didn't they actually
sort of share their houses with the animals?
And I'm sorry...but even back then, I don't think women had
so little sense as to take long trips on donkeys when they
were 9 months pregnant...no matter WHAT the Romans said!!
If I had a baby under the circumstances, well...I wouldn't
put the kid anywhere...I'd keep the baby right next to me...
In fact, when David was a baby that's what I did...
> Of the real meaning of "being born again" Jewish boys were "reborn" at the age of twelve in a "community birth," simular to the modern bar mitzvah. It goes on and on.
>
> I must say, I found the story somewhat convincing. Definitely worth the read, but must be done with an open mind. The author (Sir Laurence Gardner) has credibility and apparently never started out to write the book, rather .. well you can read it for yourself.
>
> The URL is at:
> http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/holygrail.html
Sounds interesting...I'll check it out..and thanks!!!
But I'll tell you...you wouldn't *believe* the piles of books-to-be-read I've
accumulated in the past months...the piles are unreal, although I just
managed to get most of them in big boxes while I put up more
bookshelves....not to mention, the huge list of things I want to read...
I'd like to take about a year off from ALL reading and just take more
naps! My job involves a lot of physical work, though...actually, I'm a
bit too worn out at times to do anything but surf the internet!!
>
> Take care my friend,
You, too, Dennis! You know, I didn't realize the new name & address
were *you* and may have missed a few of your posts...well, I'm at
the same email-address, feel free to drop me a line, although I'm
going to be cutting down on my computer time a bit...have to focus on
some home maintenance stuff I've been neglecting...bathroom faucet,
new dryer vent...
<giggle> Sorry...since I'm here, I'm obligated to "detract" ...but I'm sure
you're aware, if you're not an eckist, no matter *what* name you sign,
well...different addresses are a deceptive Branch Lane Davidian evil
Kal-plot...
Gotta run!!
((Hugs))
Me
Frank H. Weeden
> For me, had I not gone into Eckankar, I would have completely walked away from
> any kind of spiritual life. After returning from Viet Nam nothing seemed to have
> any value. Eckankar gave me a renewed hope and purpose to once again begin
> seeking the truth.
Dear Dennis,
Glad you made it back from Vietnam. Thank you for serving over there.
I'm a veteran of Panama, Desert Storm, and other "fun" places in the
Third World. I received my honorable discharge in 1992, after having
been an Army medic for six years. I just wanted to say thanks, and
welcome you home to America, even if it *is* many years after the fact.
With Warmth and Gratitude,
Frank
Rich
>
> I just want to clarify a few pionts:
>
> JT <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think I could ever join an organization such as Eckankar.
>
> But not because of what David Lanes book says about Eckankar, but because of
> my own wishes to be free of external encumbrances. In other words, I want
> to do it on my own with the help of select individuals that I come to know -
> not some pat formula from an organization.
In light of the quotes you posted from "Key to Secret Worlds", I'm
curious as to what you see in the Eckankar teachings that is a "pat
formula"? Beyond the discourses being in a specified order, it seems to
me that Eckists are free to follow there own formula.
> But that's just me. Others can
> rightly do it much differently and can benefit from their contacts. After
> all, I too have been part of formal organizations for short periods of time.
> I just don't feel comfortable keeping the tie long term.
>
> <snip>
> > I don't want to be an Eck bot.
>
> I was subconsiously reacting to Sharon's use of the term.
Her negative 'stuff' in general infects even reasonable positive folks
like yourself.
>I don't think
> anyone likes people saying they are automatons of some kind. I don't think
> people here in this newsgroup are automatons either. I don't believe there
> is any such thing as an Eck bot or a bot of any other kind. Everyone is
> simply following their own path. I think the idea of labelling someone an
> Eck bot is very pejorative and I don't think I was thinking straight when I
> used it.
That's the downside of reading her posts. She throws up so much
negative 'stuff' into this NG that often some of it sticks to the
reader. The innocent are most likely to catch her 'virus'.
J T
<snip>
> In light of the quotes you posted from "Key to Secret Worlds", I'm
> curious as to what you see in the Eckankar teachings that is a "pat
> formula"? Beyond the discourses being in a specified order, it seems to
> me that Eckists are free to follow there own formula.
<snip>
Rich, I was just making a general statement about all outer organizations.
The method of choice for transmitting teachings is to codify them by writing
them down. That somtimes leads to a one size fits all approach and results
in readers debating over the meaning of what has been written. It also can
spawn zealots who insist on doctrinal purity as they understand it. I
suppose on the positive side, teachings that are written down can reach many
both today and in future. When I look at the longevity of the Bible, the
Koran, the Gita, and others, they owe their longevity to the "written" word.
On the hand, that same written word is likely responsible for the dark ages,
the inquisition, and other excesses in the name of religion. I think any
religion which proudly announces it is "the best" or "the most direct way"
to this or that is simply setting itself up for attack and criticism. But
that's their call...
Regards,
JT
J T
<snip>
<Eckankar tries to take the
> best, leave the rest, and make a path to God not only convenient, cheap,
and
> fun, but conversely, controlling, condescending, and elitist. That is
something
> you find out afterwards.
> IF it seems too good to be true-------it probably is.
>
> CB
<snip>
I think Eckists on A.R.E. are best able to respond to you. As an outsider,
I can't quarrel with your comments since it has nothing to do with me. I
take you at your word.
However, in my experience (others can talk about Sant Mat, and other paths
which I am not familiar) the concept of soul travel is unique to Eckankar.
This is where I learned about the idea. Not that I have had any success
whatsoever, but one never stops trying. The idea of figuring out how things
are going to go at the time of the final "lights out" is something I am very
interested in. Eckankar provides "a" key for figuring this out. So far, it
hasn't helped me, but, it certaintly has given me something to think about,
and provided many wonderful moments of experimentation and contemplation.
Certaintly, one thing I hope we can agree on CB, whatever we may think about
Paul Twitchell and the organization he created, the followers of Eckankar
are no different than the followers of any other religious group. I think
we owe Eckists respect and courtesy in the practice of their beliefs.
Years ago, I used to tell people that God was so impersonal, that his spirit
or Eck would respond equally well, from saint or sinner, despite our image
of it. So, if you want, try praying to a chair, or a wall, or a rabbit's
foot. It can work just as well or better (if its your way) than anything
else. In that sense, you see, what does it matter that we personally may
think someone else's philisophy is a pile of crap? What are we trying to
save them from? Paying $135 a month? Big deal! Maybe $135 a month for the
pleasure of getting discourses, friendships, letters, get togethers, and
everything else that comes with membership is in fact a small price to pay.
I've spent more in one night in a sushi bar that Eckists pay for a month in
membership. Who cares? On the other hand if our purpose is to hear the
other side say "uncle" by admitting that they are following a silly ideology
put together by greedy charlatans and con artists - I think you may be
disappointed. It ain't gonna happen. Especially, since sincere believers
of any path just don't see the world the same way as a detractor might. I
can respect that. What do you think....
Regards,
JT
ken
J T <wi...@lefca.com> wrote
:
: What are we trying to
: save them from? Paying $135 a month? Big deal! Maybe $135 a month for the
: pleasure of getting discourses, friendships, letters, get togethers, and
: everything else that comes with membership is in fact a small price to pay.
: I've spent more in one night in a sushi bar that Eckists pay for a month in
: membership. Who cares?
Hey JT. Enjoyed reading your perspective. Just one small
correction . . . membership is $135 a year. That's just a little
over $11 a month.
Ken
Rich
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > In light of the quotes you posted from "Key to Secret Worlds", I'm
> > curious as to what you see in the Eckankar teachings that is a "pat
> > formula"? Beyond the discourses being in a specified order, it seems to
> > me that Eckists are free to follow there own formula.
> <snip>
>
> Rich, I was just making a general statement about all outer organizations.
Oh, OK. :-) Thanks for clearing that up JT.
> The method of choice for transmitting teachings is to codify them by writing
> them down. That somtimes leads to a one size fits all approach and results
> in readers debating over the meaning of what has been written.
Right, I would say usually. Although Eckankar seems to promote more
than other paths a 'make it fit to you' approach, than the other way
around, and having a living masters helps, these are characteristic of
any organization.
> It also can
> spawn zealots who insist on doctrinal purity as they understand it.
Yes, there is a bell curve of understanding and tolerance that is
intrinsic in the nature of humanity.
> I
> suppose on the positive side, teachings that are written down can reach many
> both today and in future. When I look at the longevity of the Bible, the
> Koran, the Gita, and others, they owe their longevity to the "written" word.
> On the hand, that same written word is likely responsible for the dark ages,
> the inquisition, and other excesses in the name of religion. I think any
> religion which proudly announces it is "the best" or "the most direct way"
> to this or that is simply setting itself up for attack and criticism. But
> that's their call...
I think any religion that humbly has different beliefs will _still_ be
attacked and criticized by those who are intolerant of any different
beliefs outside their own.
Paul Twitchell used what appears today to be some overly dramatic ways
to launch Eckankar. Some of those attitudes and techniques from the
40's and 50's don't fly very well in today's light. Irregardless of how
those have been modified towards modern times, we still see the
fanatical, intolerant end of the bell curve in this NG, attacking and
criticizing what is in effect, an innocuous path to God.
Take care,
Rich
intolerance and absolutist rhetoric that goes beyond mere opinion, and
is so often used by detractors in their efforts to misrepresent
Eckankar, Eckists and Eck masters.
CB wrote:
> When a.r.e. Eckists are challenged on their "outer" teachings which include
> their "bible" the Shariyat"; or the flaws, ***lies, and plagiarism*** of their Leaders
> (LEMs). they retreat and play down the Earthly "realities" of Eckankar and
> assure us that most "work" with the ECK is achieved on the "inner"---yet these
> very leaders and texts associated with Eckankar *** openly demand allegiance *** to the
> outer aspects in order to achieve enlightenment. They call the Holy Spirit ECK
> *** because that's what Paul Twitchell wanted them to *** call it. They call Harold the
> LEM *** because Paul told them to. *** They are to study ECK discourses, and *** are told
> unconditionally that the only path tho God is using the terms and conditions of
> the organization. ***
> The most startling and obvious difference, I can see, between Eckankar and
> other "world class" religions such as Christianity or Hinduism is the quality of
> the outer offerings. The Bible or Koran or writings of the saints including
> Thomas Aquinas or Paramanhansa Yogananda are so richly inspiring and offer
> significant literary and spritual guidance, while the Shariyat and other Eck
> books written by Twitchell right up to Klemp are banal, insipid rantings and
> ravings of inferior quality. One wonders how anyone can take these books
> seriously???? Twitchell himself wrote the *** Forward *** to Far Country,
Actually it is an "Introduction"; where he says, "I have tried to lay
down the patterns of the most breathtaking and far reaching esoteric
teachings known to man." In other words, it is the "pattern" or common
thread of various divine teachings, that he put together, that is a
"matchless spiritual masterpiece _of divine wisdom_."
> one of his own
> books, and called it a "matchless spiritual masterpiece" Go figure!! When does
> an author kiss his own ass by penning a rave critique of his own work?<G>
> Once in a while, Twitchell may say something that rings true but that is only
> because he was one to flutter about from one religion to another picking up the
> buzzwords and concepts of all the New Age fads of his day----Scientology and
> Indian yogis and gurus. He was also a little upstart *** who pissed off his own guru ***
> with "Tiger's Fang" which, rejected by Kirpal Singh, *** became the impetus for Paul
> to "imagine" Eckankar. ***
> Eckankar is NOT ancient wisdom. The source of many of Paul's ideas are
> derivatives of other ancient wisdoms and were integrated into his imagination
> to give the illusion of being intrinsically valid. His Eck Masters are like
> imaginary childhood friends, except he played with them when he was an adult.
> There are no such creatures. *** If Eckists tell you they knew them before they knew
> Eckankar existed they are either lying, or seeing things. ***
> When trying to decide whether Eckankar is right for them ought to consider a
> song by Ringo Starr called "It Don't Come Easy". Eckankar tries to take the
> best, leave the rest, and make a path to God not only convenient, cheap, and
> fun, but conversely,*** controlling, condescending, and elitist.*** That is something
> you find out afterwards.
> IF it seems too good to be true-------it probably is.
If I had also highlighted what parts are mere opinion, there would be
very little of this post left. Much like the Wizard of OZ himself, that
he alludes to with the Subject, Mr Radzik has very little substance to
offer.
Rich
> What are we trying to
> save them from? Paying $135 a month? Big deal! Maybe $135 a month for the
> pleasure of getting discourses, friendships, letters, get togethers, and
> everything else that comes with membership is in fact a small price to pay.
Actually it's a little over $10/mo - $130 a year. That's less than 36¢
a day, which won't even get you the rice that goes with one sushi.:)
> I've spent more in one night in a sushi bar that Eckists pay for a month in
> membership. Who cares? On the other hand if our purpose is to hear the
> other side say "uncle" by admitting that they are following a silly ideology
> put together by greedy charlatans and con artists - I think you may be
> disappointed. It ain't gonna happen.
After years of detracting, I think they know that Eckists are not going
to deny the benefits of the organization and their experiences with the
Light and Sound, just because of detractors negative views. So mostly
they are targeting the would be seeker and the uninformed with their
rhetoric.
JT
<SNIP>
I like the principal of charity as explained in the Bible.
Don't you have children, or grandkids, or a dog or two?
You know, I don't look at people as strangers, or treat them as
such...maybe I'm too friendly at times, but you know, I just
generally tend to like everyone & think of them as friends I don't
know yet!!
You know, I wouldn't have the vaguest idea of how to be
consistently impersonal...don't you ever just get that
overwhelming feeling of just wanting to hug people & puppies & trees
& the whole world?
Of course, well...sometimes I make exceptions, usually when it's
been absolutely proven to me that hugging could be
dangerous....and potentially fatal!
I may not *always* be courteous and considerate...sometimes I feel
being rude & crude is more appropriate...<ggg>
<snip>
Sharon:
My newserver had dropped messages I had received just 24 hours ago. I
retrieved the snippet above from deja news. I didn't realize how quickly
the newserver clears out old messages.
You are genuinely a good person. You are tireless in pursuit of your
ideals. I think you have shown you can be both humourous and serious. I
have to say, that while I often find your posts both informative and light
hearted, I am sometimes a little concerned that your message is being
overshadowed somewhat by your choice of words. It's not my place to judge
you or anybody else, but if I had the choice, and I knew how to go about it,
I would try to bring out the "courteous and considerate" Sharon as you state
above, rather than the "rude & crude" one. But I'll bet you wouldn't be as
much fun then. Anyway, I hope you remain detached by whatever you do in
this newsgroup. I'm sure most of the time, it's just "tongue in cheek".
Oh, by the way, you asked if I had any grand kids, dogs, etc. Well, I will
say this, my wife and I are raising 2 dogs at present, a German Shephard
(about 81 pounds) and a 4 month old Standard Schnauzer (at 22 pounds (I
expect she'll grow to 35 pounds as an adult)). We've raised 4 dogs so far.
We lost the first pair of German Shepherds when they were about 12 years
old. That's it. Now you know everything about me that is worth knowing.
The rest of the time I work. I take very little vacation, and I am happiest
when I am at work and around my dogs. I am about as dull as they come.
It's my choice, and as Maxwell Smart says, "And Loving It!".
Regards,
JT
Sharon
"JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
but if I had the choice, and I knew how to go about it,
> I would try to bring out the "courteous and considerate" Sharon as you state above, rather than the "rude & crude" one. But I'll bet you >wouldn't be as much fun then.
Well, JT, menopause is sort of like reverse puberty...and
add to that the loss of memory, well...sometimes I take too
much estrogen, sometimes I forget it totally...
Some ECKists think I am off topic. But...I just mentioned
ECKANKAR to stay on track....
Okay, the connection...I left ECKankar and am now a mindless
subhuman veggie as Sri Paul Twitchell, 97? Living ECK Master,
Mahanta, retired exorcist (see IMSIAF), born of a virgin,
the only manifestation of the SUGMAD, etc., predicted.
Anyway, I hope you remain detached by whatever you do in
> this newsgroup.
Well, other than the fingers being attached to the keyboard,
I'm pretty detached. Except, well...those pesky maggots junk
up the keyboard sometimes...I have to leave the keyboard and
go get the vacuum cleaner & RAID...
> I'm sure most of the time, it's just "tongue in cheek".
It's better than nothin' . . .
>
> Oh, by the way, you asked if I had any grand kids, dogs, etc. Well, I will say this, my wife and I are raising 2 dogs at present, a German Shephard (about 81 pounds) and a 4 month old Standard Schnauzer (at 22 pounds
Oh, wow!! Depending on my Noodle's haircut, sometimes he looks
like a Schnauzer!! They're cute!!
I *love* Shepherds!! I had the most wonderful Shepherd years ago. I
still miss her. Bottle-fed her because Girl kept hiding her behind the
woodpile...
I just adopted another one! (I had Ratt, a Yorkie, briefly...but he went
to the other planes to be with his beloved Master...I miss him too, sort
of.) Anyway, Pokey is five...she's spayed... she's a trained killer attack
dog. Really!! She practices on the garbage...
And...she's also a trained bomb-sniffing dog. She practices by
opening the kitchen cabinets, and taking one bite out of each of
12 packages of ramen noodles (I keep them around for my son's
girlfriend. Disgusting stuff. My youngest grandson eats them
raw, like cookies. I think he just does it to irritate his
mother.)
What does this have to do with ECKankar? Okay...Harold wrote in
one of his books (actually, he gave a seminar talk and it was
compiled in a book) that dogs are eckmasters and cats are not. I
forget which book.
I take very little vacation, and I am happiest
> when I am at work and around my dogs.
Me, too!!! Noo is 12. His mother was around 11...her first
litter. Her real mom found her in the desert as a puppy...
I was being a temporary foster mom. Bear was a miniature
dachshund. The litter was a multiple fertilization. I thought
maybe the dad was a Lhasa-type dog, until recently I saw a
picture of a Polish Sheepdog in a dog book!! And that's what
Noodle really is!!! Amazing, isn't it?
Connection with ECKankar? It's a WAKING DREAM!!!! I always
wondered what kind of a dog Noo was...and THE MAHANTA made all
this weird stuff happen so my question would be answered...
Oh...Pokey's name was "Chewy" ... I didn't like it, so...I knew
the right spiritual name would come to me on the inner. With
some outer confirmation. Anyway...she has a cow-lick up the
middle of her head, it's sort of like a short "Mohawk." So...
it just popped into my head...POCAHONTAS...Pokey for short...
So...Pokey is sort of a mantra, I figure. I'm going to try it faithfully,
20 minutes a day, same time same place...maybe it'll work for me! Maybe
I'll see a Native American ECKmaster. Maybe I already did, but don't
remember. But that doesn't matter, you know. I wonder if the Native
American ECKmaster has a Mohawk, or looks more like Daniel Day Lewis with
long hair & a loincloth... <sigh> Has anyone painted his picture? Any of
you ECKists ever see anyone like this? Darn, if I'd had a choice...just
didn't like the swarthy-barky-pokey-eckmaster (OHMISUGMAD!! Pokey Again!)
and the bald guy didn't appeal to me, neither did the blonde one....but for
Daniel Day Lewis with long hair and a loincloth, hey...I'll send in my $130
a year!!
Another ECKankar connection...Noodle is always with me. I try
not to be aware of it, though.
Pokey spends a lot of time on the inner planes, working out her
karma. She's also getting her physical rest...so she'll be
ready when her trained killer attack dog skills are needed.
I am about as dull as they come.
> It's my choice, and as Maxwell Smart says, "And Loving It!".
Maxwell Smart was funny!!
I liked Inspector Gadget, too.
Who knows...maybe they were ECKmasters!
<yawn>
Sharon
radcoin
> It's not a question of not allowing others freedom of beliefs. I have
> a perfect right to state that someone shows lack of understanding. If
Is it true, is it kind, is it NECESSARY?
A friend,
Dennis
radcoin
> Sounds like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by I forget who...something
> to do with Cathars...descendants of Jesus & Mary M. being the
> French royal family or something....
Yes, that's it.
> As far as priests & power, well...boys will be boys, and women
> are becoming more & more "liberated!" So you even see it
> in Brownie Troop leaders...
<Big smile> I see you're with the program. Keep it up and were going to have to make you a priestiess! (And no, you STILL won't get equal pay!) <grunt>
> I think there's a good possibility that he lived beyond the
> crucifixion...and even possibly came to America as the Mormons
> claim...
His story is that they settled in southern France. That's the same area where the bible was first created. (The book "Against Heresy" laid out the original outline which would later become the bible). By-the-way, Mary M was an Esciene priestess. Appearently the
name "Mary" was a title simular to the Catholic nuns taking the name such as Mary Catherline, etc.
> You know, now that I think about it...didn't they actually
> sort of share their houses with the animals?
I don't believe so. Who would want to live with an ass running around the house.(!!!)
.
.
.
No, let's not go there.
> You, too, Dennis! You know, I didn't realize the new name & address
> were *you* and may have missed a few of your posts...well, I'm at
> the same email-address, feel free to drop me a line, although I'm
> going to be cutting down on my computer time a bit...have to focus on
> some home maintenance stuff I've been neglecting...bathroom faucet,
> new dryer vent...
Work address. <goofing off> shsssss!
> <giggle> Sorry...since I'm here, I'm obligated to "detract" ...but I'm sure
> you're aware, if you're not an eckist, no matter *what* name you sign,
> well...different addresses are a deceptive Branch Lane Davidian evil
> Kal-plot...
I would have been quite disappointed if you haden't.
Take care,
Dennis
arel...@home.com
> 3. pg 53 Paul says, "Many oriental teachers will tell you that it takes
> years to reach self-realization or God-realization, and that they, the
> masters, are the only channels by which it can be gained. Nothing can be
> further from truth, and though you learn much from the ECK masters, you will
> eventually give up all masters in a natural way. "
This is an interesting comment. I haven't look at that book for probably
17 years or so. It's good advice.
It makes me wonder why Paul turned around and made the Living ECK Master
position as the only true channel by which Self and God Realization can
be gained. Anyone can plainly these sentiments in the Shariyat quotes
that have been floating around here.
I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
the volumes of text which say this.
Although the quote you provided above does appear as though Paul was
being an advocate for the student, this, in my opinion, is overshadowed
by the multitude of contradictory passages contained in the eckankar
bible and it's discourses.
Can you see how confusing this can be for a student?
Lurk
arel...@home.com
>
> Paul Twitchell used what appears today to be some overly dramatic ways
> to launch Eckankar. Some of those attitudes and techniques from the
> 40's and 50's don't fly very well in today's light. Irregardless of how
> those have been modified towards modern times, we still see the
> fanatical, intolerant end of the bell curve in this NG, attacking and
> criticizing what is in effect, an innocuous path to God.
After reading this, two words come to mind: rationalization hustler. <gg>
Lurk
Rich
> I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
> quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
> sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
> and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
> the volumes of text which say this.
Dispite all the "overwhelming evidence" that Lurk sees, the overwhelming
majority of Eckists do not subscribe to that POV.
Nathan Zafran
It is, all three, to those who could be confused by misinformation.
Kindness is a 2 way street.
You can't use these 3 blanket questions in every situation.
Discrimination is often called for. Tough love, for example, might
seem cruel to some, while protecting someone in an important way, at
the same time. Same as discrimination.
I make my calls, and I stand by them. I also accept full
responsibility for what I say and do, as well as what I think.
If how I act fits into my agenda, then I feel ok with it. If the
Mahanta disagrees with my action, I'll get the message right quick,
say I'm sorry, and learn from the experience.
You can't please everyone. I haven't pleased you. Too bad. You haven't
pleased me, either. So we're even.
In ECK,
Nathan
Sharon
radcoin <rad...@npcc.net> wrote:
> Sharon wrote:
>
> > Sounds like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by I forget who...something
> > to do with Cathars...descendants of Jesus & Mary M. being the
> > French royal family or something....
>
> Yes, that's it.
Saw some interesting stuff on the Discover Channel or something, Dead Sea
Scroll things, I believe, about the mating/marriage customs of the Essenes,
too...all Essene females were referred to as "virgins" until they got
married & pregnant, not necessarily in that order, I think...
And <giggle> there's some kind of new Essene group...I didn't set bookmark
though, I sent for info, but can't hunt through my box full of neat &
interesting stuff I've sent for, because my nail polish is wet...anyway, you
can become an ordained Essene for less than it costs to become an ECK HI!
You oughtta see all the neat stuff I've been collecting...
>
> > As far as priests & power, well...boys will be boys, and women
> > are becoming more & more "liberated!" So you even see it
> > in Brownie Troop leaders...
>
> <Big smile> I see you're with the program. Keep it up and were going to have to make you a priestiess! (And no, you STILL won't get equal pay!) <grunt>
Hey!! I could do a John-Roger, and move to California, and
get a mansion with a swimming pool, and initiate lots of cute
young Brad Pitt lookalikes!! <giggle>
I mean, I'm already doomed ... I might as well enjoy the
next couple million incarnations!!
>
> > I think there's a good possibility that he lived beyond the
> > crucifixion...and even possibly came to America as the Mormons
> > claim...
>
> His story is that they settled in southern France. That's the same area where the bible was first created. (The book "Against Heresy" laid out the original outline which would later become the bible). By-the-way, Mary M was an Esciene priestess. Appearently the
> name "Mary" was a title simular to the Catholic nuns taking the name such as Mary Catherline, etc.
>
I'll tell you, I don't remember all of it...you know, I bet
Jesus only got picked on for hanging out with Mary M because
the other rabbis were jealous!!
> > You know, now that I think about it...didn't they actually
> > sort of share their houses with the animals?
>
> I don't believe so. Who would want to live with an ass running around the house.(!!!)
> .
> No, let's not go there.
<giggle> Can't resist this one, Dennis....although I've
never tried it for long, they're not that bad once you
train them to put the toilet seat down.....
<snipped stuff>
Hey, Dennis...what else did Gopal have to say about Twitch?
Is there an Other Planes Newsletter...sort of like the
National Enquirer? Feel free to post some quotes! <ggg>
Hugs,
Sharon
Uh-oh, did I stay on topic here? I think maybe I'd better post an eckquote
just to be sure....
Paul Twitchell in Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad Book 2 : "Those who are without the
Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, are pagans, little better than those life
forms just below that of man." page 173
JT
> JT Quoted Paul Twitchell:
>
> > 3. pg 53 Paul says, "Many oriental teachers will tell you that it takes
> > years to reach self-realization or God-realization, and that they, the
> > masters, are the only channels by which it can be gained. Nothing can
be
> > further from truth, and though you learn much from the ECK masters, you
will
> > eventually give up all masters in a natural way. "
>
> This is an interesting comment. I haven't look at that book for probably
> 17 years or so. It's good advice.
>
> It makes me wonder why Paul turned around and made the Living ECK Master
> position as the only true channel by which Self and God Realization can
> be gained. Anyone can plainly these sentiments in the Shariyat quotes
> that have been floating around here.
>
> quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
> sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
> and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
> the volumes of text which say this.
>
> being an advocate for the student, this, in my opinion, is overshadowed
> by the multitude of contradictory passages contained in the eckankar
> bible and it's discourses.
>
> Can you see how confusing this can be for a student?
>
> Lurk
Yep, it can be very confusing.
That's why you have to separate Paul Twitchell the individualist, the "cliff
hanger" from Paul Twitchell the organization builder. Paul obviously spoke
from many different view points. I like the swash buckling, heroic, "in
your face", adventurer and explorer persona, and it's that set of virtues
that most enamored me to Paul. I think the rest of the pile of stuff Paul
speaks with regard to the LEM could equally well apply to anyone holding a
post of great distinction whereas Pauls inner more generous sentiments and
speak more to the mahanta consciousness, than to the human identity of a
current LEM. I think this constant movement of viewpoints from inner to
outer is a source a great source of distraction and confusion for everyone.
Just consider all the Eck splinter groups and their distinguished Eck
Masters. They all claim to be divinely appointed. An maybe, in some sense
they are. How about Gary Olsen? I understand he will be having a broadcast
to interested parties over the internet sometime early next month. I've
read some of his words on his web site. Pretty impressive stuff. Even G.
Michael Turner impresses me with the courage in which he conducts his
affairs. It's very clear that no one has the corner on being the "one and
only" "living" [Eck] "master". God is not a "respecter of persons" or
"pure sons". In other words, God does not designate any living individual
as his one and only true channel to the exclusion of everyone else. Anyone
who makes such a claim, in my opinion, is deluded, and is suffering from a
runaway ego. No true master will ever say, "Look here, I am the biggest,
best, baddest Guru around". A true master may say that he is "one" with the
Lord, but never the "only" one.
Regards,
JT
Sharon
"JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
In other words, God does not designate any living individual
> as his one and only true channel to the exclusion of everyone else. Anyone who makes such a claim, in my opinion, is deluded, and is suffering from a runaway ego. No true master will ever say, "Look here, I am the biggest, best, baddest Guru around". A true master may say that he is "one" with the
> Lord, but never the "only" one.
>
I agree with you, JT...and Twitchell and Klemp were/are
obviously deluded.
And...both make it quite clear that the "inner" and the
"outer" are the same thing.
You know...I'm tired of cutting and pasting quotes. I'm
going to reconstruct my website soon...it'll all be there
again....
Oh, heck...maybe I'll just write a book...
Sharon
ken
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote ...
:
: arel...@home.com wrote:
: > I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
: > quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
: > sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
: > and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
: > the volumes of text which say this.
: Dispite all the "overwhelming evidence" that Lurk sees, the overwhelming
: majority of Eckists do not subscribe to that POV.
I agree with Rich here. Most Eckists don't agree with Lurk's unique
interpretations.
Lurk very clearly shows why I chose not to provide examples of quotes
from the Eck books to back up my viewpoint. Because no matter what
quote I find, Lurk & Co. will dismiss it as not carrying as much weight
as their quote. In their eyes, their quotes and their POV's are always
regarded as more creditable. Funny how that works.
Ken
SoulWords
>from the Eck books to back up my viewpoint. Because no matter what
>quote I find, Lurk & Co. will dismiss it as not carrying as much weight
>as their quote. In their eyes, their quotes and their POV's are always
>regarded as more creditable. Funny how that works.
Can I quote you on that, Ken?
My quote's bigger than your quote,
nayh, nyah! <G>
life is a multi-dimensional pastiche
of fractal patterns beyond the reach of anyone's mind, genius or moron.
It weaves its huge patchwork in such, deep,overarching patterns- any words,
by anybody, ECKist, detractor, or
snake-worshipper that can help our
tiny brains to get the vaguest hint of this
magnificence is wonderful.
Paul and Harold have given me some useful clues to this huge thing called life.
That,for me, is genius enough!
Love, David
Rainforest
Sharon wrote:
> In article <DKdu3.72$rl....@198.235.216.4>,
> "JT" <wi...@lefca.com> wrote:
>
> > I have just finished re-reading "Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds". Very nice. I recommend this text to anyone with an interest in spiritual or occult subjects.
>
> Don't know if I still have that around...BUT...these worlds
> aren't so "secret," nor is paul twitchell's "religion" the
> "key."
>
> >
> > While reading this book I couldn't help but be struck by the skill or >genius of Paul Twitchell in weaving in so many ideas from so many >sources.
>
> Skill and genius? He had a library card, JT.
>
> I've got half a dozen of them, you know. But I'd rather buy
> books, to be honest.
>
> > I realize now that many of my first contacts with eastern ideas sprang >from reading that single book.
>
> My first contacts with eastern ideas probably sprang from reading
> the World Book Encyclopedia in third & fourth grades...yes, the
> whole thing, cover to cover...
>
> But my first *conscious* recollection is reading Alan Watts in
> tenth grade. Possibly ninth grade...
>
> And...possibly many of my contacts with "eastern" ideas also came
> in high school, reading the American Romanticists such as Emerson,
> Thoreau, Whitman, Melville, Hawthorne, Poe...a bunch of them had
> a "Transcendental Club" ... they studied & discussed many eastern
> works and ideas, as well as somewhat "nonconformist" Christian
> authorities...I remember the latter, because when I was working for
> the Lutheran Parish last year, a Christian newsletter quote source
> quoted several by Fenelon, who I'd never heard of, but I thought the
> quotes were excellent, and looked him up...
>
> Not to mention, well...I always loved sci-fi, and even horror!
>
> And "that" is probably why eckankar seems to "resonate" with so
> many...not because of any past lives with a "master," but simply
> as a result of living on earth, going to school, and reading...
>
> > No wonder the appearance of plagiarism often surronds Paul's writings. I prefer to think that Paul simply edited the
> > works of many and added his own insights to the mix. I certaintly
> > appreciate what a gigantic effort that must have been.
>
> It's more than the "appearance" of plagiarism, JT. As <giggle>
> Harold Klemp says...if it looks like a talk, walks like a duck,
> talks like a duck, smells like a duck, etc., well...it's a duck!
> (That's paraphrased...he was referring to religion, and saying
> that eckankar WAS one.)
>
> I like your use of the phrase "I prefer to think..."
>
> You know...I'd like to give twitchell the benefit of the doubt,
> too. If Gail had cared about him and not just money and power,
> she would have encouraged him to develop and polish his OWN
> writing and spirituality, and not just pushed him into starting a
> cult, and declaring himself God-On-Earth.
>
> He had quite an imagination...but it takes perseverance and
> discipline to be a success in your chosen field, especially
> writing...
>
> He bounced around a lot. Getting mixed up with Scientology and
> L. Ron Hubbard was probably the LAST thing he needed...
>
> >
> > Paul takes such teachings as soul travel, karma, non-interference,
> > travellers, spiritual hiararchy, personal freedom, experiences of saints of all religions, and so on and puts them together in framework that supports what I believe to be his central thesis of Eckankar: soul travel.
>
> A very important of presenting a thesis, JT, is quoting sources
> to back up your claims, and showing *evidence*. And...giving
> credit to your sources is also very important...
>
> > Without
> > the principal of soul travel as the vehical for achieving personal mastery
> > and freedom, the rest of Eckankar is pretty empty. Soul travel is the
> > centre piece of this path. All the rest is simply commentary.
>
> No...the rest of it isn't empty. It's filled with lies, threats,
> and mind-control. It's more than simply commentary.
>
> The use of the words "Soul Travel" is also deceptive. It's plain
> old average astral-projection and psychic parlor tricks. And
> sadly, well...it's definitely not all "good." In fact, it has all
> the elements of the "black magic" that twitchell accused OTHERS of
> using.
Dear Sharon:
Paulji's use of the words "Soul Travel" is not as deceptive as you may think and it is definitely NOT astral projection.
His use of the phrase is a technique of ECKANKAR (God-In-Action). ECKANKAR teaches the science of "Soul Travel" which is a shift in consciousness or vibrational rate, the mastering of the movement of attention which is a measure of the inner ECK force.
Paulji writes:
"A careful study of the case histories of Christian Saints and Eastern Adepts will prove that IT is a living experience which can be brought under control of the operator himself."
He goes on to say:
"I studied every feasible Soul Travel theory known, made some trips abroad to the Orient where I read manuscripts, talked with adepts, gurus and holy men on the subject and practiced all the techniques which were learned about, jut to see what they were like".
Paulji's use of the term ECKANKAR encompassed:
"...your concept of yourself as soul, such as 'I am loved', determines the world in which you live. In other words, when you say, 'I am a man, I am a follower of ECKANKAR' you are defining different parts of the I AM, but are defining different concepts or agreements of the one Cause-substance--the one I AM. Even in the phenomenon of nature, if
a tree were articulate, it would say, 'I am a tree, an Apple tree, a fruit tree.
When you know that consciousness is the one and only reality conceiving itself to be something good, bad or indifferent, and becoming that which it conceived it self to be, you are free of the tyranny of Second Causes, free from the belief that there are Causes outside of your own mind that can effect your own life.
In the state of consciousness of the individual is found the explanation of the phenomenon of life. If a man's concept of himself were different, everything in his life would be different. His concept of himself being what it is, everything in his world must be as it is.
This is the doctrine of ECKANKAR."
How did Paulji compel others to feel the particularity of his emotions?
That is the real question isolated.
There is no universal answer but of necessity as particular and personal as the emotion or idea he is trying to import.
There is no hard and fast rule that we can cling to; but at least we can stay out of the readers way.
With this modest ambition in mind we might take to heart certain bits of advice-in-general, that is always remembering that a great writer may flout all advice, break every rule in the book and still produce a living masterpiece.
The creation of ECKANKAR refers to a quality which transcends all personal idiosyncrasy, yet needs
(or appears to need) personal idiosyncrasy in order to be manifested.
ECKANKAR in the absolute sense, is a complete fusion of the personal and the universal.
A great writer is never more intensely recognizable and recognizably more himself then in his greatest passages; to use a (vaguely) metaphysical phrase:
Paulji's absolute all inclusiveness with universality is the complete realization of universal significance in a particular expression. This expression he called ECKANKAR.
Most of Paulji's spiritual philosophy can be found in:
"The Tiger's Fang" 1957
and
"The Flute of God" 1959
In his search for ECKANKAR, his studies led him to discover a hidden, Golden spiritual thread of principles that were common to all paths. A main Master Key for unlocking the secrets of the spiritual universe(s).
ECKANKAR The (master) Key to Secret Worlds 1969
ECKANKAR The Key to Secret Worlds was and still one on my favorite books.
In ECK,
George
>
>
> >
> > Again, I have no quarrel with those that feel that Paul may have been
> > contradictory or inconsistent. My point is not in shoring up Paul's way of doing things.
>
> Is "shoring up" the same as rationalizing? Making excuses?
> Covering Up? Gilding the Dead Lily?
>
> > Rather, my point is that Paul gave us a wonderful paradigm
> > for understanding the spiritual worlds and the role of soul travel in
> > lifting us to them. Personal freedom here and now is the guiding >principle in Paul's Eckankar.
>
> Personal freedom here and now for Paul Twitchell, maybe.
>
> Especially...economic freedom.
>
> Too bad he didn't understand the ethics involved in freedom,
> or respect others enough to grant THEM freedom.
>
> > The fact that he created an organization which then had
> > to be nourished and justified is unfortunate.
>
> You'd think God-On-Earth, the Only Chosen Manifestation of the
> SUGMAD would have known better, wouldn't you?
>
> Unless...his motives were less than pure.
>
> > It is here that the excesses centering around the Living Eck Master >have their origin. In the above mentioned book, Paul speaks more of >the "spiritual travellers" - plural i.e. more than one spiritual >traveller.
>
> But...the "best and highest" are, of course, "eckmasters."
>
> The OTHER self-proclaimed "spiritual travelers" are either
> of the "lower planes," or lying & setting up competitive
> cults...like John-Roger and MSIA.
>
> (You know, I don't understand the big problem there. After
> all...twitch liked the ladies, but John-Roger didn't...gee,
> there was certainly enough to sort of divide up the territory
> between them. I think they were both greedy.)
>
> This would probably be a good place for some quotes....but
> I'm in a bit of a hurry here...
>
> > Paul does not deny that individuals can
> > do it on their own. He gives many examples of people soul travelling with no outside teachers. He just offers the spiritual traveller as a better way - but definitely not the only way.
>
> Where are all these examples, JT?
>
> He gives plenty of warnings about those who travel without HIM...
> the LEM. He says it's deceptive Kal-tricks.
>
> I think you're sort of confused here...where are the "teachings"
> to back up what you're saying that Paul was saying?
>
> He DID say eckankar was the *only* way...
>
> >Talk of the LEM being the only way
> > in my opinion is silly and only discredits the office of the LEM. But I digress. In my opinion the value in the book is that the individual, soul travel, the role of karma, the spiritual hierarchy, and freedom here and now are valuable concepts, and remain among my favourites in the lessons I have learned in Paul Twitchell's Eckankar.
>
> Too bad Twitchell didn't just stick to improving his writing,
> and doing it himself.
>
> If the LEM wasn't as arrogant and self-deluded as Twitch, well...
> Harold would come clean. Get rid of all the garbage, and just
> publish & sell sort of generic new-age self-help type books.
>
> But...I think he's afraid of the competition. Like M. Scott Peck.
>
> Twitch's "wisdom" didn't impress many reputable publishers of true
> spiritual works, did they? That's why he had to say he was God,
> you know.
>
> Same with Klemp. The "Chicken Soup" books are doing a heck of a
> lot better than the eckbooks. I think Klemp managed to get one
> of his things published in one of them, but I'm not sure.
Frank H. Weeden
>
> That certainly caught me off guard, Frank. Thank you.
Every veteran deserves to be welcomed home, and deserves to be thanked.
This gratitude is my pleasure, and it's the least I can do.
> Do you ever notice that those of us who served have an entirely different perspective
> of the value life than those who didn't? We've had experiences in a very real hell
> that could never be understood by those who stayed behind.
Absolutely. When you've been up to your elbows in human guts, or cried over
a friend as he dies, it certainly puts things into perspective.
Asked once what was really important-- whether it was country, honor,
freedom, etc., I replied, "My next breath, and then the one after that."
> I stand tall and give you my best salute, solder.
And it's my honor to salute you proudly in return.
> God bless,
> Dennis
God bless,
Frank
Dennis Webber
> >Is it true, is it kind, is it NECESSARY?
>
> It is, all three, to those who could be confused by misinformation.
> Kindness is a 2 way street.
I guess I simply don't see it in that manor. The way I see it, it only
takes one to offer kindness to others, and whether others choose to express
kindness or hate back shouldn't be a factor in how
we live our lives.
A response grounded in "Is it true, is it kind, is it necessary" usually
tries to meet the other party half way; which from an spiritual point of
view usually end up more than half.
> You can't use these 3 blanket questions in every situation.
I guess so, but I like to try. I find that usually I just keep my big mouth
shut after I
repeat the phrase. (I have found over bitter experience, it's usually best.)
<smile>
> You can't please everyone. I haven't pleased you. Too bad. You haven't
> pleased me, either. So we're even.
I'm sorry, I wasn't keeping score.
However you can be the winner if you like, doesn't matter to me.
Take care,
Dennis
Dennis Webber
> Dear Dennis,
>
> Glad you made it back from Vietnam. Thank you for serving over there.
> I'm a veteran of Panama, Desert Storm, and other "fun" places in the
> Third World. I received my honorable discharge in 1992, after having
> been an Army medic for six years. I just wanted to say thanks, and
> welcome you home to America, even if it *is* many years after the fact.
>
> With Warmth and Gratitude,
> Frank
That certainly caught me off guard, Frank. Thank you.
Do you ever notice that those of us who served have an entirely different perspective
of the value life than those who didn't? We've had experiences in a very real hell
that could never be understood by those who stayed behind.
I stand tall and give you my best salute, solder.
God bless,
Dennis
Nathan Zafran
wrote:
>> It is, all three, to those who could be confused by misinformation.
>> Kindness is a 2 way street.
>
>I guess I simply don't see it in that manor. The way I see it, it only
>takes one to offer kindness to others,
Really? Would you be kind to a man who just finished raping your
daughter, stolen your car, beaten you up, etc. What you propose is a
blanket statement of kindness under all possible circumstances. Sorry,
I don't buy that policy. I prefer using discrimination.
and whether others choose to express
>kindness or hate back shouldn't be a factor in how
>we live our lives.
I never said anything about expressing hate. The opposite of kindness
need not be hate. It can be an entire range of emotions. You
statement implies that one must hate in the absence of kindness. To
me, there is an infinite number of ranges of emotions to display.
There is also the aspect of following what is in your heart in the
moment, going with the flow, and being your own true self.
In Eckankar, there is an expression called the "Wrath of Sugmad",
which refers to the way the ECK coming into an area through the Living
ECK Master, or, possibly, any other pure channel for spirit, can cause
a lot of havoc in people's lives, can be brutal, in fact, quite the
opposite of kind. Yet, karmically speaking, it can be the kindest
thing possible for that soul to experience from the overview of its
spiritual evolution.
>A response grounded in "Is it true, is it kind, is it necessary" usually
>tries to meet the other party half way; which from an spiritual point of
>view usually end up more than half.
I didn't disagree with this expression. I use it all the time. I
merely said that it doesn't hold for all experiences and all
situations. No expression holds for eveything. Flexibility is the key,
as is randomity. Soul can use whatever tools it chooses to express
itself, and the only true judge of his behaviour is the Mahanta,
Spirit of Itself (the ECK), or God, not to mention, of course, the
Lords of Karma.
People trying to make judgment calls or even offer opinions very
often come from a level of conciousness that doesn't come close to the
level needed for true evaluation, except in blatantly obvious
situations, where the laws of karma are in plain sight to see.
>
>> You can't use these 3 blanket questions in every situation.
>
>I guess so, but I like to try. I find that usually I just keep my big mouth
>shut after I
>repeat the phrase. (I have found over bitter experience, it's usually best.)
That's your choice. Not mine. For me, every situation is different,
and I start fresh each time, drawing more on what my relationship to
Spirit is in the moment and opening my consciousness to what spirit
wants me to say and do, rather than depend on a given idea that might
not be applicable at all in that moment.
For example, and this isn't a good parallel, but it will suffice, I've
given countless talks on Eckankar over the years. Many of them had the
exact same title or theme. I kept detailed notes from each talk. When
asked to give the same talk again some time in the future, I'd look up
the notes, and think, boy, this is easy. I'll just use these notes and
give the same talk again, especially since it went over well last
time. WRONG! In every single case, I had to start over again from
scratch. The previous talk simply didn't fit the consciousness of the
present moment.
>
><smile>
>
>> You can't please everyone. I haven't pleased you. Too bad. You haven't
>> pleased me, either. So we're even.
>
>I'm sorry, I wasn't keeping score.
Neither am I. I'm just being realistic, as well as kinesthetic. We
have great differences in the way we view the ECK teachings and
probably most everything else metaphysically-speaking. But that's par
for the course. No harm in that, as long as we are "necessarily kind
to each other, truly!'
>
>However you can be the winner if you like, doesn't matter to me.
There is no winner or loser. There are only different viewpoints.
In ECK,
Nathan
ken
SoulWords <soul...@aol.com> wrote ...
:
: life is a multi-dimensional pastiche
: of fractal patterns beyond the reach of
: anyone's mind, genius or moron.
:
: It weaves its huge patchwork in such,
: deep,overarching patterns- any words,
: by anybody, ECKist, detractor, or
: snake-worshipper that can help our
: tiny brains to get the vaguest hint of this
: magnificence is wonderful.
Yep. ANY words which help us see the pattern of Life behind
the chaos are of value. And once you catch a glimpse of that
pattern, then you know that the words, books and contrivances
of mortal men are not the source of that wonder. And the thirst
for that Source becomes honed to a knife sharp edge.
:
: Paul and Harold have given me some
: useful clues to this huge thing called life.
: That,for me, is genius enough!
:
: Love, David
When you see the other worlds, and begin to come know That
reality, words like genius and brilliance take on another level of
meaning. Smart isn't being quick or clever, it's being as aware
of the Whole as one can be. Being a clear channel & open
vehicle for the Divine Essence becomes the priority. Now I'm
not there yet (if there even is a there, there <g>) but I've seen
and heard enough to know there's more to the story than most
folks are willing to admit.
Ken
SoulWords
>reality, words like genius and brilliance take on another level of
>meaning. Smart isn't being quick or clever, it's being as aware
>of the Whole as one can be. Being a clear channel & open
>vehicle for the Divine Essence becomes the priority. Now I'm
>not there yet (if there even is a there, there <g>) but I've seen
>and heard enough to know there's more to the story than most
>folks are willing to admit.
One requirement for that state that I am certain of is a heartful of balanced,
evenhanded, persistent, steady, and
deeply-rooted love. That love simply obliterates all labels, "good" and "bad",
all forms, all outer characteristics-
and sees the desire of Soul to find Its way home to God to be universal.
Love, David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
arel...@home.com
JT wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:37BDE64C...@home.com...
> > JT Quoted Paul Twitchell:
> >
> > > 3. pg 53 Paul says, "Many oriental teachers will tell you that it takes
> > > years to reach self-realization or God-realization, and that they, the
> > > masters, are the only channels by which it can be gained. Nothing can
> be
> > > further from truth, and though you learn much from the ECK masters, you
> will
> > > eventually give up all masters in a natural way. "
> >
> > This is an interesting comment. I haven't look at that book for probably
> > 17 years or so. It's good advice.
> >
> > It makes me wonder why Paul turned around and made the Living ECK Master
> > position as the only true channel by which Self and God Realization can
> > be gained. Anyone can plainly these sentiments in the Shariyat quotes
> > that have been floating around here.
> >
> > I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
> > quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
> > sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
> > and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
> > the volumes of text which say this.
> >
> > Although the quote you provided above does appear as though Paul was
> > being an advocate for the student, this, in my opinion, is overshadowed
> > by the multitude of contradictory passages contained in the eckankar
> > bible and it's discourses.
> >
> > Can you see how confusing this can be for a student?
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Yep, it can be very confusing.
>
> That's why you have to separate Paul Twitchell the individualist, the "cliff
> hanger" from Paul Twitchell the organization builder. Paul obviously spoke
> from many different view points. I like the swash buckling, heroic, "in
> your face", adventurer and explorer persona, and it's that set of virtues
> that most enamored me to Paul.
I personally resonated with the individualistic rebellious side of Paul.
However, I have taken an honest look at this rebelliousness I have
inside. What I found was I was reacting to authority. I think Paul was
also reaction to authority...especially spiritual authorities.
As I have look deeply into these reactions of mine to authority, I see an
attachment. I see that I am attached to being controlled. I fear being
controlled. To be controlled is to feel hurt. I want to avoid being hurt,
so my internal reaction gets expressed outwardly by rebelling against
authority. This rebelliousness sits on a bed of fear of being controlled
and actually perpetuates being attached to being controlled. It's a hard
thing to admit to oneself, because the act of defying authority is
generally associated with freedom and truth and not attachment to being controlled.
Where I once revered and identified with Paul's rebelliousness, I now view
it as simply another attachment. These kinds of attachments are the
hardest to observe because, so often, it is what we believe to be truth
simply because we are in agreement and identify with them.
This is all deductive speculation on my part, but I think Paul's
rebelliousness was of a similar nature.
In general, I think when Paul was starting his religion, he was
naturally rebellious and spoke his truth in that manner. He was a
professional seeker and hopped around from group to group. His
rebelliousness permeated his writing. I suspect the same dynamic I
experienced, Paul experienced. That is, he was really attached to being
controlled which was expressed outwardly in his rebellious writing. I see
his anti socialism and such in this light.
I think at some point, Paul made the transition from rebelling
against authority to becoming the authority. From being a seeker to
being one with answers. From being one who questions to one who knows.
He went about creating the ultimate spiritual authority figure. That too
permeated his writing, exceedingly so. The interesting thing about
this is the same underlying dynamic which is used to prop up the
rebellious Paul, is the same dynamic that propped up his persona of
being the ultimate authority.
If you have a fear of being controlled, and want to avoid being hurt,
what better way to do this than to get others to buy into the fact that
you are the ultimate authority and none may question my words for they
are the words of the Sugmad. That's the kind of crap Paul wrote about. He
created a position in which there was no one in the universe who could
control him or hurt him. This is simply a different outward expression
of the same attachment to being controlled which supported the rebelliousness.
To me, this is why we see contradictory writing from Paul. I think
Paul's personal dissonance is the shaky foundation upon which eckankar rests.
> I think the rest of the pile of stuff Paul
> speaks with regard to the LEM could equally well apply to anyone holding a
> post of great distinction...
A post of great distinction?
> ...whereas Pauls inner more generous sentiments and
> speak more to the mahanta consciousness, than to the human identity of a
> current LEM. I think this constant movement of viewpoints from inner to
> outer is a source a great source of distraction and confusion for everyone.
I agree it is a source of confusion. I haven't heard a good explanation
of how Paul, who claims to be the holder of what he call the highest
consciousness (mahanta consciousness), can hold such
consciousness and also be at the same time an itinerant liar. What good
is such consciousness if it doesn't manifest itself outwardly in our words
and deeds in the absolute way in which it is presented?
Again, I would suggest that this mahanta consciousness that is talked
about in eckankar is some sort of product differentiation ploy on Paul's
part which allowed him to create for himself the aura of perfection and
invincibility so he didn't have to deal with his own issues.
I think Harold had to do some serious dogmatic revisionism, some would
say outright lying, when Darwin also demonstrated the mahanta
consciousness was not so absolute.
>
> Just consider all the Eck splinter groups and their distinguished Eck
> Masters. They all claim to be divinely appointed. An maybe, in some sense
> they are. How about Gary Olsen?
I really haven't familiarized myself with his gig lately. Perhaps, I'll
look at his web site.
I understand he will be having a broadcast
> to interested parties over the internet sometime early next month. I've
> read some of his words on his web site. Pretty impressive stuff. Even G.
> Michael Turner impresses me with the courage in which he conducts his
> affairs.
Yes, Michael is courteous and seems to have standards when engage people
on newsgroups. He makes himself vulnerable by engaging in debates and
such. I'll give him credit for that. Of course he doesn't have much to
lose, he only has a mass following of 15 initiates or so. <gg>
I think Michael has good intentions. (I think Paul and Harold have good
intentions.) I'm not particularly thrilled with some of Michaels appeals
to authority he uses to establishes himself as a teacher.
It's very clear that no one has the corner on being the "one and
> only" "living" [Eck] "master". God is not a "respecter of persons" or
> "pure sons". In other words, God does not designate any living individual
> as his one and only true channel to the exclusion of everyone else. Anyone
> who makes such a claim, in my opinion, is deluded, and is suffering from a
> runaway ego. No true master will ever say, "Look here, I am the biggest,
> best, baddest Guru around". A true master may say that he is "one" with the
> Lord, but never the "only" one.
I agree with you here about their not being one conduit and that gurus
flaunting their stuff should be look upon suspciously.
Teachers have to be as honest about their intentions as much or more
than students need to be since students are going to make themselves
vulnerable to them. A teacher who teaches as means to unconsciously
healing themselves or as a way to negotiate their own demons through
projecting and helping others are limiting their effectiveness in the
relationship as much as the student who latches on to and is magnetically
drawn to authorities figures because of their refusal to recognized and
accept their own inner authority.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> > I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
> > quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
> > sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
> > and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
> > the volumes of text which say this.
>
> Dispite all the "overwhelming evidence" that Lurk sees, the overwhelming
> majority of Eckists do not subscribe to that POV.
Anyone can see the overwhelming evidence if they open their eyes.
I can't speak for the majority of Eckists (neither can you if you were
honest about it), but I can say that based upon my observations and the
years of listening to eckists in satsangs and worship services, most of
them spoke of and acted like Paul, Harold and eckankar were the only
true channel to Self and God Realization. Their sentiments were in
agreement with the doctrines and texts of eckankar as one would expect.
I realize eckist in general like to think there is no worship or
adulation of Harold that goes on in the new and improved eckankar, but I
beg to differ. The contextual elements which supported such adulation have
either been superficially addressed, or there remains a tolerated
duplicity which isn't even recognized as duplicity.
Eckists are perfectly willing to see those Darwin days as a time when
worship and adulation got out of hand. Harold gives a talk in the early
mid eighties about the worship of Molock which addressed this issue
of worshiping Darwin. I'm sorry folks, but changing the dynamics of
adulation/worship is involved a little bit more than giving one talk
denouncing adulation. I still think it is ironic how Harold used his
authoritarian position (the one right under God on the eckankar's
hierarchy) to denounce worshipping him. <gg>
Lurk
arel...@home.com
ken wrote:
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote ...
> :
> : arel...@home.com wrote:
> : > I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
> : > quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
> : > sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
> : > and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
> : > the volumes of text which say this.
> :
> : Dispite all the "overwhelming evidence" that Lurk sees, the overwhelming
> : majority of Eckists do not subscribe to that POV.
>
> I agree with Rich here. Most Eckists don't agree with Lurk's unique
> interpretations.
>
> Lurk very clearly shows why I chose not to provide examples of quotes
> from the Eck books to back up my viewpoint. Because no matter what
> quote I find, Lurk & Co. will dismiss it as not carrying as much weight
> as their quote. In their eyes, their quotes and their POV's are always
> regarded as more creditable. Funny how that works.
Credible in the sense that thousands of quotes will support the
sentiments I claim is predominant in eckankar texts and practices,
versus the few quotes you can provide which support the sentiment you
prefer? Don't fall into hopelessness Ken. Have the courage to take the
next step.
For those of us who want to sincerely ascertain the truth of the matter,
you can't be afraid of going the next step to entertain the idea which
sentiment is the predominant theme in eckankar. I'm willing to be proven
incorrect on this matter...how bout you?
If there are two contradictory quotes in a body of works, how else is
one to determine which one has more weight in terms of what is taught
and practiced? It seems to me the number of times something is repeated
in texts and how much of it is institutionalized in the doctrines ought
to be a significant criteria to use.
What do you think?
Lurk
Rich
It's that love, that radiated from the man, that is behind the genius
that created Eckankar. It's at the core of all life.
Rainforest
Dear Lurk:
If I may take the liberty to interject a point of view, at this point in
time. Paulji's main thrust in the 60's was offering an alternative to
Existentialism with ECKANKAR, because he felt that Existentialistic
Theory was a defeat of the human spirit.
Souls, endowed with will and consciousness, found themselves in an alien
thought-world of Existentialism with objects that had neither rhyme nor
reason.
In ECK,
George
P.S. It is interesting that Paulji put forward the concept that even
SUGMAD may have a SUGMAD, opening the way toward even higher realities.
Rich
> I realize eckist in general like to think there is no worship or
> adulation of Harold that goes on in the new and improved eckankar...
Eckists in general think that there is no worhip of Harold because they
don't do it themselves, and rely on their personal experience rather
than somebody else's "overwhelming evidence".
Rich
<SNIP most of Lurks wild speculations and comparing Paul to himself>
> That is, he was really attached to being
> controlled which was expressed outwardly in his rebellious writing. I see
> his anti socialism and such in this light.
In "Paulji - A Memoir" by Patti Simpson, she speaks about Paul:
"Paulji had already mentioned his many illnesses and near-death
experiences as a child. He had been very prone to pneumonia and had
been critically ill with it at least once. These grave times left him
with a speech impediment, which left him shy and a loner. Could the
Masters of the Vairagi possibly picked a candidate whose temperament was
more ill-suited to be the new Mahanta? Certainly they couldn't have
found one more reluctant. But this was his task to do. The speech
impediment had to be overcome. The aversions to crowds and the desire
to be alone had to be overcome. The years of research and study of the
dynamics had to be organized and systematized. Somehow he did it."
<SNIP>
> To me, this is why we see contradictory writing from Paul.
Also in "Paulji" , Paul explains about teaching -
"You have to remember that when you're out the in the field, you can't
give just one level of teaching to the people. You have to be in a
position so that what you say to people strikes all levels of
consciousness."
[....]
And about a teacher -
"He'll start his words to one person here, and then he will pitch up to
this person and then he will come around to another part of the room,
and he sees or feels a flow there, and he'll pitch it down before he
even finishes a sentence or paragraph in his speech. He knows these
things, and he is well versed in this. Now plato, I think覧I forgot
which one of his works覧the one he did on Socrates' death覧he did very
well in the sense that he kept pitching his words to reach different
states of consciousness."
[....]
"Now you'll also find this in readings, if you don't gulp the readings.
Sometimes the classics bore me, but I think the one that John Keats did
upon the Elgin Marbles...
[....]
After Keats saw the Marbles, he wrote a famous poem. It's very musical;
it has wonderful lyrics in it. And do you know, he did the same thing
within this short poem覧it must be about twenty-four lines long覧he did
the same thing, pitching to various consciousnesses.
[....]
And this is the secret of all great people who have been teaching: They
would speak into the whole of something, instead of speaking into the
part. This is what Keats did in this poem, he spoke in the whole of all
the visions that where flashing thru his mind覧 ..."
[....]
"When an instructor wants to put across a point, he speaks to the whole
of the group, and the majority of this group will find something in all
of this for themselves."
So this kind of approach that Paul took, of reaching various states of
consciousness, will have contradictions. His motivation was to spark
understanding in a wide spectrum of people.
> Again, I would suggest that this mahanta consciousness that is talked
> about in eckankar is some sort of product differentiation ploy on Paul's
> part which allowed him to create for himself the aura of perfection and
> invincibility so he didn't have to deal with his own issues.
Again from "A Memoir"
"Except in his writings and lectures, in which he used the proper
terminology, he referred to the Mahanta Consciousness as "this thing"
and he referred to his function as the Living ECK Master as either "this
job" or "this work"."
This is a fascinating book BTW. It has a lot of first hand, the behind
the scenes insight into Paul the man for someone who worked closely with
him on a daily basis.
Sharon
rain...@escape.ca wrote:
>
> Dear Lurk:
> If I may take the liberty to interject a point of view, at this point in time. Paulji's main thrust in the 60's was offering an alternative to
> Existentialism with ECKANKAR, because he felt that Existentialistic
> Theory was a defeat of the human spirit.
If I may interject here too, George, but...I can't help but wonder...
where the HECK did you come up with this one?
Paul started out selling BILOCATION...plain and simple astral projection,
then he decided to be a "Godman" ... and changed it to "Soul Travel."
Twitchell didn't think much of *human spirit* ... he had a really lousy view
of the world, and everyone and everything in it.... he was a totally negative
person, with contempt for the whole human race. And he figured he'd take
advantage of everyone, get himself worshipped...
He reveals too much of himself, George...if you open your eyes and
really look at the things he's written ... he was a narcissistic sicko.
I'd feel sorry for him, actually, if I weren't so disgusted with myself for
falling for his nonsense, and for thinking that no one would possibly lie
about God.
>
> Souls, endowed with will and consciousness, found themselves in an alien thought-world of Existentialism with objects that had neither rhyme nor reason.
Good grief, George, this sounds like pure TWITCHELL!!! This is what he says
about the whole world!!! He's more existential than the existentialists!!!
He set up a cult that said that the whole world was sick...a prison...where
nothing made sense...and that everyone should want to follow him and get out
of it.
Except...existentialism *does* make some sense, if you really look at
it...sort of... I never really saw it as negatively as some say it is...
And...aliens? In Twitchell's world, if you're not an eckmember, you're an
alien subhuman pagan mindless vegetable....
What the HECK is better about Twitch's "path" ... check out Letters to Gail
III, the cutesy alien stuff...humans being controlled by evil alien
mind-beams....and the black magic...Harold's mind-scan stuff...
Give me a break, please.
You know...I sort of skimmed over most of that. I focused on the Godstuff.
And figured, well...when I grew enough spiritually, I'd get over my "doubts"
about twitchler. Duh.
There is TONS of beauty and love and everything else wonderful in the world
all around, George. Sure, there are ups and downs...but that's okay. There
are just so many joys!! And...hey, if you want to see just how wonderful the
human spirit it, that's all around too...as I've said before, you can just
pick up a copy of the Reader's Digest...much more inspirational than any of
the eckbooks!!!
>
> P.S. It is interesting that Paulji put forward the concept that even
> SUGMAD may have a SUGMAD, opening the way toward even higher realities.
Did he? Where? Because everything else says otherwise...he wrote that the
LEM/M was higher than "THE ECK" ... and the SUGMAD was the "highest" God...
Maybe he was planning for the long-term...like, when he had enough of the
highest initiations he'd already concocted, then....he could offer members a
more secret, more holey, and probably more expensive membership...
Sharon
"Happy Happy Joy Joy!!" --Ren & Stimpy
http://members.delphi.com/sharon2000
Mahavahana
I think your take on Paulji is fascinating Lurk,
Paulji's early works greatly focussed on psychology and human
motivation. I think the two biggest influences on Paulji were
Scientology and Sant Mat (or to put it another and perhaps more
accurate way, Ron Hubbard and Kirpal Singh).
Paulji was obviously impressed by Hubbard's success, not only
monetarily but also by the sheer audacity of Hubbard in creating
something entirely new.
Paulji was also very impressed with Kirpal Singh. Most eckists
probably aren't aware that Paulji corresponded with Kirpal right up
until his death in 1971.
Kirpal was an authority to Paulji -- the original manuscript of THE
TIGER'S FANG has Kirpal taking Paulji through the planes.
There's a recording of Paulji questioning Kirpal: "what happens to a
disciple who betrays his Guru"? Kirpal made Paulji (well, he was
"Paul" back then) ask the question 3 times before he'd answer ........
{The answer was: He betrays himself)
>
> If you have a fear of being controlled, and want to avoid being hurt,
> what better way to do this than to get others to buy into the fact that
> you are the ultimate authority and none may question my words for they
> are the words of the Sugmad. That's the kind of crap Paul wrote about. He
> created a position in which there was no one in the universe who could
> control him or hurt him. This is simply a different outward expression
> of the same attachment to being controlled which supported the rebelliousness.
I think this is the main motivation for a lot of self appointed Gurus!
This is really great Lurk.
>
> To me, this is why we see contradictory writing from Paul. I think
> Paul's personal dissonance is the shaky foundation upon which eckankar rests.
>
>
> > I think the rest of the pile of stuff Paul
> > speaks with regard to the LEM could equally well apply to anyone holding a
> > post of great distinction...
>
> A post of great distinction?
>
>
> > ...whereas Pauls inner more generous sentiments and
> > speak more to the mahanta consciousness, than to the human identity of a
> > current LEM. I think this constant movement of viewpoints from inner to
> > outer is a source a great source of distraction and confusion for everyone.
>
> I agree it is a source of confusion. I haven't heard a good explanation
> of how Paul, who claims to be the holder of what he call the highest
> consciousness (mahanta consciousness), can hold such
> consciousness and also be at the same time an itinerant liar. What good
> is such consciousness if it doesn't manifest itself outwardly in our words
> and deeds in the absolute way in which it is presented?
The mystical imperative is the meat of eckankar! <g>
>
> Again, I would suggest that this mahanta consciousness that is talked
> about in eckankar is some sort of product differentiation ploy on Paul's
> part which allowed him to create for himself the aura of perfection and
> invincibility so he didn't have to deal with his own issues.
I'm still on the fence about Paulji's motivations Lurk. Like I've
written before, I tend to think his motivations were as mixed as those
of any other radical of the 60's. Perhaps Paulji intended to make a
quantum leap, breaking new ground in the imaginative faculty, and in
doing so thought that the good might outweigh the lies and plagiarism.
Or maybe he was conning himself all along.
One thing for sure, it *was* a con. The lying and the plagiarism are
proof of that.
>
> I think Harold had to do some serious dogmatic revisionism, some would
> say outright lying, when Darwin also demonstrated the mahanta
> consciousness was not so absolute.
Frankenstein.
Authority is an interesting topic! Too bad I'm out of time, maybe
later I'll think on it!
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Mahavahana
<arel...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
> > > quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
> > > sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
> > > and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
> > > the volumes of text which say this.
> >
> > majority of Eckists do not subscribe to that POV.
>
>
> I can't speak for the majority of Eckists (neither can you if you were
> honest about it), but I can say that based upon my observations and the
> years of listening to eckists in satsangs and worship services, most of
> them spoke of and acted like Paul, Harold and eckankar were the only
> true channel to Self and God Realization. Their sentiments were in
> agreement with the doctrines and texts of eckankar as one would expect.
My experiences concur with yours, Dr. Lurker!
>
> I realize eckist in general like to think there is no worship or
> adulation of Harold that goes on in the new and improved eckankar, but I
> beg to differ. The contextual elements which supported such adulation have
> either been superficially addressed, or there remains a tolerated
> duplicity which isn't even recognized as duplicity.
This notion that Darwin was "worshipped" and Harold isn't is pretty
laughable! Darwin was held in the exact same light as Harold is today
by the general population of eck members.
Anyone can try to read through old ECK WORLD NEWS and find some
evidence that Darwin was looked upon differently than Harold. Good
luck.
>
> Eckists are perfectly willing to see those Darwin days as a time when
> worship and adulation got out of hand. Harold gives a talk in the early
> mid eighties about the worship of Molock which addressed this issue
> of worshiping Darwin. I'm sorry folks, but changing the dynamics of
> adulation/worship is involved a little bit more than giving one talk
> denouncing adulation. I still think it is ironic how Harold used his
> authoritarian position (the one right under God on the eckankar's
> hierarchy) to denounce worshipping him. <gg>
Like I said before, watch and see if Harold ever "retires." Would you
retire if you thought there was any chance your successor would take
away all your initiations? Heck, not me!
Now, if Harold had a son.... (daughters don't count of course)
Rainforest
Sharon wrote:
> In article <37C08E...@escape.ca>,
> rain...@escape.ca wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Lurk:
> > If I may take the liberty to interject a point of view, at this point in time. Paulji's main thrust in the 60's was offering an alternative to
> > Existentialism with ECKANKAR, because he felt that Existentialistic
> > Theory was a defeat of the human spirit.
>
> If I may interject here too, George, but...I can't help but wonder...
> where the HECK did you come up with this one?
Good Morning Sharon:
If you want to, you can do research in old lectures & tapes as well as Introduction to ECKANKAR,
1966 and The Key to ECKANKAR, 1968.
Paul started out selling BILOCATION...plain and simple astral projection,
That assumption is not correct, Paulji was very specific on this subject, please check it out.
> then he decided to be a "Godman" ... and changed it to "Soul Travel."
Again, this is not correct, please check it out.
> Twitchell didn't think much of *human spirit* ... he had a really lousy view
> of the world, and everyone and everything in it.... he was a totally negative
> person, with contempt for the whole human race. And he figured he'd take
> advantage of everyone, get himself worshipped...
Please Sharon, this is not true, check out his original motives.
> He reveals too much of himself, George...if you open your eyes and
> really look at the things he's written ... he was a narcissistic sicko.
I feel my eyes are wide open. I may not articulate as some of my fellow ECKists in expressing my feelings for the ECK Works, but I do my research with an open
heart, and I just do not see Paulji in this light.
> I'd feel sorry for him, actually, if I weren't so disgusted with myself for
> falling for his nonsense, and for thinking that no one would possibly lie
> about God.
Paulji is trying to explain to us how God (SUGMAD) works in a way that all may be free, if they want to.
>> Souls, endowed with will and consciousness, found themselves in an alien thought world of Existentialism with objects that had neither rhyme nor reason.
> Good grief, George, this sounds like pure TWITCHELL!!! This is what he says
> about the whole world!!! He's more existential than the existentialists!!!
Please Sharon, check out Existentialist Philosophy before passing judgment.
> He set up a cult that said that the whole world was sick...a prison...where
> nothing made sense...and that everyone should want to follow him and get out
> of it.
Not true Sharon.
> Except...existentialism *does* make some sense, if you really look at
> it...sort of... I never really saw it as negatively as some say it is...
>
> And...aliens? In Twitchell's world, if you're not an eckmember, you're an
> alien subhuman pagan mindless vegetable....
I honestly do not get that impression, if I did I would consider you an alien subhuman mindless vegetable, but I don't. I see all of us as equals. No one
higher, no one lower. Levels of initiation are inner world privies between The Mahanta and Soul and has no place in the physical arena.
Before I found The ECK, or the ECK found me, I most likely was a mindless subhuman pagan veg-et-able.
> What the HECK is better about Twitch's "path" ... check out Letters to Gail
> III, the cutesy alien stuff...humans being controlled by evil alien
> mind-beams....and the black magic...Harold's mind-scan stuff...
Perhaps Paulji was referring to 'mindless subhuman pagan vegetables' that are grossly aberated and are highly impressionable.
>
> Give me a break, please.
>
> You know...I sort of skimmed over most of that. I focused on the Godstuff.
> And figured, well...when I grew enough spiritually, I'd get over my "doubts"
> about twitchler. Duh.
>
> There is TONS of beauty and love and everything else wonderful in the world
> all around, George. Sure, there are ups and downs...but that's okay. There
> are just so many joys!! And...hey, if you want to see just how wonderful the
> human spirit it, that's all around too...as I've said before, you can just
> pick up a copy of the Reader's Digest...much more inspirational than any of
> the eckbooks!!!
I enjoy Reader's Digest also, even took one of their on site seminar classes in Journalism in 1981.
> >
> > P.S. It is interesting that Paulji put forward the concept that even
> > SUGMAD may have a SUGMAD, opening the way toward even higher realities.
>
> Did he? Where? Because everything else says otherwise...he wrote that the
> LEM/M was higher than "THE ECK" ... and the SUGMAD was the "highest" God...
It's in the early works Sharon.
> Maybe he was planning for the long-term...like, when he had enough of the
> highest initiations he'd already concocted, then....he could offer members a
> more secret, more holey, and probably more expensive membership...
I feel his reason for saying that was because there is no beginning and there is no end- and we as Soul only evolve an spiral into a logarithmic progression
of higher consciousness and realities.
In ECK,
George
Frank H. Weeden
>
> This is a fascinating book BTW. It has a lot of first hand, the behind
> the scenes insight into Paul the man for someone who worked closely with
> him on a daily basis.
> --
I agree, Rich. I just finished reading it, although I bought
it long ago. Wonderful book.
In Light & Sound,
Frank
ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:37C05E38...@home.com...
:
:
: > : > I guess the next question is which one of these sentiments behind the
: > : > quotes is the predominate message in eckankar? I would have to say the
: > : > sentiment that the Living Eck Master is the only true channel to Self
: > : > and God Realization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this in
: > : > the volumes of text which say this.
: > :
: > : Dispite all the "overwhelming evidence" that Lurk sees, the overwhelming
: > : majority of Eckists do not subscribe to that POV.
: > I agree with Rich here. Most Eckists don't agree with Lurk's unique
: > interpretations.
: >
: > Lurk very clearly shows why I chose not to provide examples of quotes
: > from the Eck books to back up my viewpoint. Because no matter what
: > quote I find, Lurk & Co. will dismiss it as not carrying as much weight
: > as their quote. In their eyes, their quotes and their POV's are always
: > regarded as more creditable. Funny how that works.
:
: Credible in the sense that thousands of quotes will support the
: sentiments I claim is predominant in eckankar texts and practices,
: versus the few quotes you can provide which support the sentiment you
: prefer? Don't fall into hopelessness Ken. Have the courage to take the
: next step.
"Thousands" versus a "few"? I'm not going to fall for that shallow
attempt to goad me into a quote war. You engage simple sophistry.
: For those of us who want to sincerely ascertain the truth of the matter,
: you can't be afraid of going the next step to entertain the idea which
: sentiment is the predominant theme in eckankar. I'm willing to be proven
: incorrect on this matter...how bout you?
Here's a new approach for you: Look at the facts without any bias.
: If there are two contradictory quotes in a body of works, how else is
: one to determine which one has more weight in terms of what is taught
: and practiced? It seems to me the number of times something is repeated
: in texts and how much of it is institutionalized in the doctrines ought
: to be a significant criteria to use.
The only way to determine the importance or weight of two
*apparently* contradictory messages in a work, is to look at how
the work is applied in real life by the individuals involved with that
work. But of course that's much more difficult than simply counting
words. I doubt if you are up to it.
Ken
Galuuk
were 69 entries. I've read 8 so far. All have been by Eckists and all have
been genuine efforts to express deep concerns over the content and methods of
responding to anti-Eck posts. Although there has been varying opinions on best
how to accomplish such ends there has been a tone of respectful consideration
and acceptance of how others do it.
Agreeing to disagree. Cool stuff.
I wonder how long this thread can continue without disruption.
Joey
At the end of information there is knowledge.....
At the end of knowledge there is Wisdom.....
At the end of Wisdom there is Love.....
Galuuk
<<< Thanks so much for these JT!
It's probably not what she wanted to see. She has been attempting to
establish credibility by posting any quote that can, even in the
remotest way, be construed to reflect as negative about Eckankar,
Eckists and Eck masters. The fact is that there are way more like these
throughout the writings, than the ones she selects. She overwhelms the
newsgroup with hers, while Eckist here tend to not post as many quotes
because they are not so locked into the written words and speak from
their practical real life experiences instead.
The Shariyat books are written in a different style and do contain
contradictory statements to these. Yet I can assure you that from then
up to today, I and most Eckist are in agreement with the quotes above.
Hey JT, hope you hang around a bit more. It's refreshing to have
someone who is relatively neutral and reasonable about both sides of the
issues the detractors perpetually raise here. >>>>
I wholeheartedly agree here Rich. JT seems to have a instinctive ability to
grasp spiritual realities. He appears to have the mental makeup to
differentiate unsubstantiated claims from Truth as he perceives it. Whatever
route he ultimately chooses to refine his abilities, I earnestly hope he makes
it lifelong and passionate.
Galuuk
<<< I think the rest of the pile of stuff Paul
speaks with regard to the LEM could equally well apply to anyone holding a
post of great distinction whereas Pauls inner more generous sentiments and
speak more to the mahanta consciousness, than to the human identity of a
current LEM. >>>
Bingo
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP most of Lurks wild speculations and comparing Paul to himself>
Rich, I wasn't attempting to compare Paul to myself as much as I was
attempting to convey the basis for my observations were from personal experience.
>
> > That is, he was really attached to being
> > controlled which was expressed outwardly in his rebellious writing. I see
> > his anti socialism and such in this light.
>
> In "Paulji - A Memoir" by Patti Simpson, she speaks about Paul:
>
> "Paulji had already mentioned his many illnesses and near-death
> experiences as a child. He had been very prone to pneumonia and had
> been critically ill with it at least once. These grave times left him
> with a speech impediment, which left him shy and a loner. Could the
> Masters of the Vairagi possibly picked a candidate whose temperament was
> more ill-suited to be the new Mahanta? Certainly they couldn't have
> found one more reluctant. But this was his task to do. The speech
> impediment had to be overcome. The aversions to crowds and the desire
> to be alone had to be overcome. The years of research and study of the
> dynamics had to be organized and systematized. Somehow he did it."
If these stories are true, it supports my contention by giving reasons
for his rebellious, loner, antisocial disposition.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > To me, this is why we see contradictory writing from Paul.
>
Years ago, I used to think that Paul's contradictions were purposeful to
appeal to diverse set of people. However, the plagiarism from different
spiritual schools perfectly explains that for me.
I can truly appreciate the fact that two diametrically opposed sentiments
can appear to be contradictory, but upon further inspection or
consideration of the different contexts, such contradictions can both be
true in their respective contexts.
But the example I pointed out here of Paul advising students to stay
away from oriental teachers who say that are the only true channels to
Self and God Realization and them building his own path/religion with
based upon the very thing he object to has more to do with personal
dissonance than with appealing to a broad spectrum of people of varied
consciousness, in my opinion.
>
> > Again, I would suggest that this mahanta consciousness that is talked
> > about in eckankar is some sort of product differentiation ploy on Paul's
> > part which allowed him to create for himself the aura of perfection and
> > invincibility so he didn't have to deal with his own issues.
>
> Again from "A Memoir"
>
> "Except in his writings and lectures, in which he used the proper
> terminology, he referred to the Mahanta Consciousness as "this thing"
> and he referred to his function as the Living ECK Master as either "this
> job" or "this work"."
>
> This is a fascinating book BTW. It has a lot of first hand, the behind
> the scenes insight into Paul the man for someone who worked closely with
> him on a daily basis.
I haven't looked at it in a long time...perhaps I look it over again.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
I understand why you wouldn't want to exchange quotes supporting your
contention... You would run out of quotes very quickly. <gg>
It is somewhat wise to back down from a challenge you can't win...but
let's be honest about it.
>
> : For those of us who want to sincerely ascertain the truth of the matter,
> : you can't be afraid of going the next step to entertain the idea which
> : sentiment is the predominant theme in eckankar. I'm willing to be proven
> : incorrect on this matter...how bout you?
>
> Here's a new approach for you: Look at the facts without any bias.
Like a politician, you fail to answer to the question. Based upon this
non response, I'll just have to assume you are indeed frighten to be
shown incorrect on this matter. But I'll give you the space to be with
your fear. Moment of silence..... <gg>
>
> : If there are two contradictory quotes in a body of works, how else is
> : one to determine which one has more weight in terms of what is taught
> : and practiced? It seems to me the number of times something is repeated
> : in texts and how much of it is institutionalized in the doctrines ought
> : to be a significant criteria to use.
>
> The only way to determine the importance or weight of two
> *apparently* contradictory messages in a work, is to look at how
> the work is applied in real life by the individuals involved with that
> work. But of course that's much more difficult than simply counting
> words. I doubt if you are up to it.
How about we do a study and ask ten eckists: "How does eckankar compare
to other paths/religions." (This question would have to be asked by an
eckist so the eckists answering the question will feel free to use all
the eckankar rhetoric and not edited themselves for public consumption
as Harold teaches.)
I guarantee nine out of ten responses (if not ten out of ten) will be
something about eckankar either being the highest or fastest way to God,
or God realization, or self realization, or divine love or whatever. And
that it is only through the Living Eck Master that such lofty heights
can be reached.
Why? Because eckists read eckankar books which repeatedly say eckankar
is the highest (old slogan) and fastest (new slogan). I wonder how an
eckists can make the judgment of their path being the highest or fastest
based upon their experience?
Lurk
Galuuk
<<< Eckankar tries to take the
best, leave the rest, and make a path to God not only convenient, cheap, and
fun, but conversely, controlling, condescending, and elitist. >>>
So, tell us CB, when you portray yourself as all knowing and wise(as you do in
the above statement) are you mocking up your condescending and elitist
attitude, or is that your true personality shining through???
arel...@home.com
Mahavahana wrote:
>
> I'm still on the fence about Paulji's motivations Lurk. Like I've
> written before, I tend to think his motivations were as mixed as those
> of any other radical of the 60's. Perhaps Paulji intended to make a
> quantum leap, breaking new ground in the imaginative faculty, and in
> doing so thought that the good might outweigh the lies and plagiarism.
> Or maybe he was conning himself all along.
>
> One thing for sure, it *was* a con. The lying and the plagiarism are
> proof of that.
I tend to think these sort of things happen as a natural consequences of
flawed humans with low self honesty. I don't really think Paul or Harold or
other gurus are diabolical. I think it is entirely possible that Paul
had good intentions. I think people who allow themselves to be taken
advantage of, naturally take advantage of others, don't know it and can
still have the best intentions. People who deceive themselves, naturally
deceive others, may not know it and may have the best intentions and can
even be nice guys. People who abuse themselves, naturally abuse others,
don't know it and can still have the best intentions.
I think one way to deal with deep psychological wounds is to invent a
spiritual system to help people where one gets to be the hero. I
question the efficacy and value of such a system.
I compare it to the psychological profession. Many enter this field as a
unconscious gesture to understand and heal their own wounds. The most
effective psychologist I would guess are the ones who have dealt with
their issues and healed their major wounds. Their personal sense of
worth and purpose aren't depended upon their clients getting fixed and
therefore their egos will be less intrusive in the process. They factor
the client's
transference of authority issues into the process and instead of
exploiting it.
For the psychologist who has not deal with their major issues/wounds, I
guess would be less effective and would be projecting their issues off
on their clients. You would never really know if the counsel they are
giving clients are advice they are giving themselves, the client, or both.
What they say sometimes is true and makes sense for the client and can
be useful advise and direction.
However, since their personal sense of worth and purpose is depended
upon their client getting fixed, this subverts the process in many subtle
ways. The psychologist's unmet needs dictates that (s)he be the star
(authority) and not the client. For example, the psychologist will solve
problems for the client instead of allowing them to arrive at their own
conclusions. A dependency in both directions can develop which ends up
being a cultic relationship and can be counterproductive to both in the
long run. I stipulate long run because I think this kind of relationship
has some short term gains on an emotions level that are misconstrued as
balance. Both sides can feel a sense of esteem. Being the authority
brings with it a type of self esteem just as succumbing to authority
does. Stroking egos and finding meaning has a certain liberating aspect
to it.
Does this psychologist sit down and plan how they are going to make
someone psychologically depended upon them? Nah. In fact, I think you'll
find this type of psychologist speaks up as a champion for people being
responsible and making choices while their actions cultivate a
dependency. Thus, psychological dissonance prevails. It seems to be a natural
consequence of the awareness level.
I think when you plug Paul into this model as one who really didn't
quite completely deal with his psychological wounds, there is an awful
lot of things that fall into place. The puzzle is no longer that
puzzling to me. This model can explain apparent contradictions in how he
was a charismatic guy who cared about people on the one hand, and at the
same time deceive and lie to people.
When people on this newsgroup want to know why it is such a big deal that
Paul lied and plagiarized, this is why in my opinion. He was a decent
fellow and probably had a heart of gold, but you can't deny the effects
of his own personal dissonance and the impact it has had on people. He
exploited the transference of his students just as his own transference
may have been exploited by his teacher(s).
People who create paths/religions as a means to personally heal
themselves without knowing it, do not create balanced techniques,
doctrines, dissemination methods in much the same way as the unaware
psychologist. A path or religion founded upon psychological dissonance
will for the most part yield the same. It gets quite confusing because
the talk overshadows the fact that the walk doesn't match.
What are Paul's motivations? Who knows. My speculations are based upon
my personal experiences of looking deeply at my own wounds, lack of self
honesty, dissonance and the authority issues on both ends of the
spectrum. Understanding the dynamics within myself helps me understand
the dynamics in others, while making sure to make allowances for
differences, and taking caution that I don't simply project my stuff on
to others. It's a deductive process.
I believe psychological dissonance explains a lot when it comes to Paul.
Galuuk
<<< That's the downside of reading her posts. She throws up so much
negative 'stuff' into this NG that often some of it sticks to the
reader. The innocent are most likely to catch her 'virus'. >>>
Would you be indicating that unsanitary practices can cause a multitude of
problems with whomever comes in contact with the carrier???
:-)
Galuuk
<<< I've spent more in one night in a sushi bar that Eckists pay for a
month in
membership. >>>
I've never been to a sushi bar, but a night for under 15 bucks sounds very
tempting.....
Frank H. Weeden
"How does eckankar compare to other paths/religions."
This one was too intriguing to pass up. <G>
The following is, of course, only my opinion. I'm sure
that many will probably disagree with me, but that's okay.
I can only vouch for myself, and I will present my answer
as honestly and straightforward as I know how. Fair enough?
To me, Eckankar gives me the chance to prove the spiritual
principles in the teachings to myself, and evaluate them
before choosing to believe them. In my experience with other
religions, belief and faith is required, and expression of
doubt is something that is frowned upon.
Eckankar gives me the freedom to come and go as I choose,
with no one keeping track of my attendance, or brow-beating
me to attend certain functions, or pressuring me one way or
the other. (Again, I am aware of all the quotes in all of the
books that seem to be contrary to this, but I have yet to
encounter anyone pressuring me with them.)
Eckankar gives me the opportunity to be with people who share
my same, basic beliefs concerning Soul, reincarnation, dreams,
and spiritual guides/masters. All of these things were beliefs
that I had picked up before finding Eckankar.
Personally, Eckankar is the clearest path that I've found, after
nearly a lifetime of searching. I've written about this before.
There are elements of other religions in the teachings, but
Eckankar has brought them all together and put them into a format
that has produced powerful, dynamic growth for me, as well as
helping me to make sense of the challenges and difficulties that
come my way in this life.
Could I do this on my own? Probably. Is it more useful to have a
spiritual guide and a set of guidelines? Definitely. If I were
a voyager preparing to sail around the globe, there are several
places where I could get my maps and guidance from. Any other
map would probably get my to my destination. I would choose the
one that was easiest for me to read and follow. This is what
Eckankar means to me. Certainly, this isn't the totality of what
it means and what it has done for me, but in the most basic terms,
I think I've summed up my own feelings on it.
I can't really compare Eckankar to any other religion. When I
was a Christian, Christianity worked for me until I was ready
to expand my horizons. When I was a Buddhist, Buddhism worked
for me until I was ready to move on. For a short while, all of
the "new age" stuff like auras, crystals, stones, Tarot cards,
and Ouija boards worked for me. In each case, I learned as much
as I was ready to learn, and assimilated as much of those things
as I could, keeping what I found was useful and discarding what
wasn't useful to me.
So far, Eckankar has inspired me to keep on reaching and has
given me the tools to keep on experiencing a deeper and more
fulfilling relationship with God. This is all I've ever wanted,
and where other paths and religions have not delivered, Eckankar
has. This isn't to say that other paths and religions are somehow
inferior. All I know is what is best for me, and what has produced
results in my own life.
Frank
Rich
<SNIP>
While Lurk's logic seems good, it is usually based on fictitious and
false assumptions.
For example in just one paragraph he concludes about fictitious
psychologists:
(1) "their personal sense of worth and purpose is depended upon their
client getting fixed"
(2) "this subverts the process in many subtle ways"
(3) "psychologist's unmet needs dictates that (s)he be the star"
(4) "which ends up being a cultic relationship" [of]
(5) "A dependency in both directions" [because it is]
(6) "Stroking egos"
Lurk takes a scenario, that while plausible, is an _extreme and rare_
one, and applies it to Eckankar as if it is the norm.
> What are Paul's motivations? Who knows. My speculations are based upon
> my personal experiences of looking deeply at my own wounds, lack of self
> honesty, dissonance and the authority issues on both ends of the
> spectrum.
Lurk looks at the dynamics that go on within himself and assumes that
everyone one else(psychologist's, Eckists, Paul Twitchell, ect) must
have "wounds, lack of self honesty, dissonance and[a problem with] the
authority issues" like he does.
> Understanding the dynamics within myself helps me understand
> the dynamics in others, while making sure to make allowances for
> differences, and taking caution that I don't simply project my stuff on
> to others.
But this is _exactly_ what he does. He does not acknowledge "allowances
for differences" in the conclusions of his arguments, and invariably
turns a blind eye to how he projects his "stuff" on to others. He says
here he doesn't do, what he just did in the preceding paragraphs in this
post!
SoulWords
> <<< Eckankar tries to take the
>best, leave the rest, and make a path to God not only convenient, cheap, and
>fun, but conversely, controlling, condescending, and elitist. >>>
>
>
>So, tell us CB, when you portray yourself as all knowing and wise(as you do
>in
>the above statement) are you mocking up your condescending and elitist
>attitude, or is that your true personality shining through???
>
>
>Joey
The ECKists I know could not be further from that stereotype. There is a
genuine humilty present in most, an openness of heart, an appreciation of the
sheer joy of being alive.....
Love in ECK, David
w...@achilles.net
>
> It is a streamlined path to God without the wear and tear.
Ha! That's a hot one. Like the old country song says, "you've got to
walk that lonesome valley...nobody else can walk it for you" Being
streamlined does not mean the same as being easy.
> Judging by the attitude and demeanor of a.r.e. Eckists, I would say that
> you are all pretty much clueless, verbose, sarcastic, vindictive, sneaky
> and immoral in your postings, which contradicts most of the main tenets
> of your chosen path.
I think you are generalizing unfairly. Easier to get a reaction from
that, I suppose, than from a more accurate but less sweeping statement.
Coming from someone who just decried the use of shortcuts, I couldn't
let the comment slide.
Bruce
Sharon
soul...@aol.com (SoulWords) wrote:
> >
> > <<< Eckankar tries to take the
> >best, leave the rest, and make a path to God not only convenient, cheap, and
> >fun, but conversely, controlling, condescending, and elitist. >>>
> >
> >
> >So, tell us CB, when you portray yourself as all knowing and wise(as you do
> >in
> >the above statement) are you mocking up your condescending and elitist
> >attitude, or is that your true personality shining through???
> >
> >
> >Joey
>
> The ECKists I know could not be further from that stereotype. There is a
> genuine humilty present in most, an openness of heart, an appreciation of the
> sheer joy of being alive.....
99% of the *people* I know are pretty nice...
Too bad about your eckist friends....that nice people
have been conned into joining an organization based
on lies, deceit, and delusion...
Of course, you get people like Joey *everywhere*
unfortunately...
The eck teenie 1 discourses are real cute....
"I know a new thing. That new thing is a truth, an
experience just for me. Did you know that ice is frozen
water? Did you know that a rabbit can run very fast?
Did you know that the Mahanta, Wah Z, likes to give me
presents?"
I'd say the age level on this one is for 5 or 6 year
olds. The pictures to color are real cute...a little
girl in a chair that says "EK" on it...writing a letter
that says "Wah Z I love you..." The caption below says
"Maybe I will send the Mahanta a picture and love note."
And when the kid gets older, they'll send a check...
Sharon
P.S. Hey David...remember when I posted that sociology list about
groups & their members? You ignored most of them...I'll have
to look it up again...a bit embarrassing, weren't they?
>
> Love in ECK, David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At the end of information there is knowledge.....
> >At the end of knowledge there is Wisdom.....
> >At the end of Wisdom there is Love.....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
"Happy Happy Joy Joy!!" --Ren & Stimpy
Rich
> What you see is what you get. If you spent a little more time
> researching the origins of Eckankar, you will find that Twitchell robbed
> from the spiritually rich, and gave to the lazy poor. Eckankar is merely
> a collection of varied World religions prepared for gullible God seekers
> like yourself who don't want to work too hard at achieving any true
> spiritual heights. He "bypassed" much of the work necessary to reach
> "Godhead" and made Eckankar an easy, in-your-own-home type of path that
> demanded nothing of you except a small 130 dollar yearly stipend for
> some half baked discourses and initiations you that your cohorts drool
> over as some sort of "salvation" from the material world. It is a
> streamlined path to God without the wear and tear.
> Got news for you buddy. Good things don't come easy.
> Judging by the attitude and demeanor of a.r.e. Eckists, I would say that
> you are all pretty much clueless, verbose, sarcastic, vindictive, sneaky
> and immoral in your postings, which contradicts most of the main tenets
> of your chosen path. Why don't you all just shut the hell up and chant
> HU and detach into Sat Nam???
Yada, Yada, yada... You wish it were that way, but it's obvious that it
infuriates you into this kind of mindless raging, that so many people
around the world have gained so much from the teachings of Eckankar,
while you remain spiritually poisoned.
ken
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote . . .
:
Lurk wrote:
: > Understanding the dynamics within myself helps me understand
: > the dynamics in others, while making sure to make allowances for
: > differences, and taking caution that I don't simply project my stuff on
: > to others.
: But this is _exactly_ what he does. He does not acknowledge "allowances
: for differences" in the conclusions of his arguments, and invariably
: turns a blind eye to how he projects his "stuff" on to others. He says
: here he doesn't do, what he just did in the preceding paragraphs in this
: post!
I don't know if Lurk is projecting his own "stuff" onto others or not. Maybe
he's just constructing a scenario that sounds good to him. I do know that
his explanations of the dynamics of Paul Twitchell and Eckankar don't
fit the situation at all.
Ken
Windy
>
> P.S. Hey David...remember when I posted that sociology list about
> groups & their members? You ignored most of them...I'll have
> to look it up again...a bit embarrassing, weren't they?
>
comment on your rantings that they are somehow embarrassed by what you
have written and it is a picture of truth?
You really should take more time reading your posts after you slather
them onto the net. You amy find that boredom and redundancy is one of
the main reasons people who read your posts, probably don't bother to
read them to the end. You read one of your posts, you've pretty much got
the idea what you are all about, control, blind cult leadership. You are
trying to do everything you accuse Paul Twitchell of doing, except what
you offer for a goal is to become bitter and filled with hate, while
Paul's path offers freedom and no control and the love only a true
leader can provide.
So Sharon, why not give your problem a name and seek professional
advice and perhaps a nice long rest in a sanitarium where you can drive
the staff nuts as well.
arel...@home.com
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> While Lurk's logic seems good, it is usually based on fictitious and
> false assumptions.
> For example in just one paragraph he concludes about fictitious
> psychologists:
> client getting fixed"
> (2) "this subverts the process in many subtle ways"
> (3) "psychologist's unmet needs dictates that (s)he be the star"
> (4) "which ends up being a cultic relationship" [of]
> (5) "A dependency in both directions" [because it is]
> (6) "Stroking egos"
Your saying I use false assumptions in my hypothetical example? Hey...
it's my hypothetical example, I can assume anything I want to make a
point.
>
> Lurk takes a scenario, that while plausible, is an _extreme and rare_
> one, and applies it to Eckankar as if it is the norm.
Gawd Rich, I simply created two categories to illustrate point. Making
them extreme
is for illustrative purposes. Sometimes it goes without saying that in
the real world such hard categories do not exist. People who have deep
wounds don't necessarily project 100% of the time nor do people who have
healed their wounds speak with clarity 100% of the time.
>
> > What are Paul's motivations? Who knows. My speculations are based upon
> > my personal experiences of looking deeply at my own wounds, lack of self
> > honesty, dissonance and the authority issues on both ends of the
> > spectrum.
>
> Lurk looks at the dynamics that go on within himself and assumes that
> everyone one else(psychologist's, Eckists, Paul Twitchell, ect) must
> have "wounds, lack of self honesty, dissonance and[a problem with] the
> authority issues" like he does.
I don't believe I stated everyone, Rich. Just the people that I see have
problems in these areas. Paul's kind of jumps out at me...glaringly so
in his writing. Although I would guess his personal dissonance and deep
unhealed wounds would attract people of a like kind, I can not say for
sure this is true, just as you can not say this is not true. I'm sure
there are a variety of reasons people resonated with Paul's teachings.
>
> > Understanding the dynamics within myself helps me understand
> > the dynamics in others, while making sure to make allowances for
> > differences, and taking caution that I don't simply project my stuff on
> > to others.
>
> But this is _exactly_ what he does. He does not acknowledge "allowances
> for differences" in the conclusions of his arguments, and invariably
> turns a blind eye to how he projects his "stuff" on to others. He says
> here he doesn't do, what he just did in the preceding paragraphs in this
> post!
Well let's see who exactly is projecting what here. Rich, I think you
need to read up on the dynamics of psychological projection. When I
admit to my own dissonance, and self dishonesty and deep wounds, and
bring these up as the basis for my understanding of Paul's dissonance,
that's not projecting. I would be projecting if I acted like I couldn't
possibly suffer from dissonance, I was always truthful with my self and
I didn't suffer any deep wounds as I made comments about Paul's stuff. I
hope you can see the difference.
I knew when I wrote this, there was going to be someone who stood up and
proclaimed me as the one who is projecting and such. It is no surprise
it was you Rich. <g>
Yes, I have projected many things on to many people in my life. I have
projected things here on to people in this newsgroups. Sometimes in the
heat of an argument I will notice my projecting and and defensiveness.
The way I look at it, I figure, why not honor such projecting...it
brings out into the light of day my silent assumptions and beliefs about
myself and others which can then be inspected and correct if desired.
This is a good thing. It's better than let's say...acting "spiritually
perfect" all the time.
Your characterizing my comparison of the psychologist's dissonance with
Paul's dissonance as my personal projections is trite reading of what I
wrote. Besides that, you haven't shown me the agile mindedness and
clarity of thought needed to render a judgment that I would trust about
when and when I'm not projecting. Perhaps you should try a different
line of argumentation to refute the points I raised. <gg>
Lurk
Galuuk
<<< Your characterizing my comparison of the psychologist's dissonance
with
Paul's dissonance as my personal projections is trite reading of what I
wrote. Besides that, you haven't shown me the agile mindedness and
clarity of thought needed to render a judgment that I would trust about
when and when I'm not projecting. Perhaps you should try a different
line of argumentation to refute the points I raised. >>>>
Why should Rich try a different line of argumentation???? His analysis was
perfect. Perhaps you want him to try another, because this one was SO ACCURATE
and it exposed you....made you feel very uncomfortable.
Just a third party observation.....
Joey
Galuuk
<<< You are a good
person when you aren't an Eckist. What in the world do you think you are
trying to prove here? >>>
I truly don't know how "good" of a person I am. Having you, CB, cast me as one
doesn't really reassure me that much, but it's always nice to hear that. I
thank you for that.
But I do know that if I hadn't become an Eckist I would probably be dead by
this time. I was one wild, crazy son of a bitch. And I do know, that even
today, being an Eckist....listening to the inner guidance of the
Mahanta....makes me a better human being. There is no doubt in my mind about
that.
And it's impossible for me to imagine, with what I know about Eckankar, that
there is not one person on the face of the earth who would not be better off
spiritually by knowing the Mahanta.
Frank H. Weeden
> It happens all the time here. Once a detractor pinpoints a defect or flaw in
> the ECK teachings, the usual response is usually non-sequiter,
> condescending, or character assassination. Nobody on a..r.e. to date has
> seemed to be able to respond to a direct question without making a detour.
Well, this is unfair, CB. I've been as direct and honest in my answers as
I can. There are things I don't know the answers to, or things that I'm
not willing to get involved with like quote wars, but I know that my
intentions have been good, and that I have spoken from the heart.
> Incidentally, the detractors who make the most sense are the most hated! All
> of you would love to see Mahavanana and arelurker disappear. Their posts are
> lucid, to the point, and virtually paint you in the corner when they post.
> All you do is open the window and jump out to avoid the embarassment.
Lots of the abusive garbage gets skimmed over, but I have engaged in dialog
with Sharon, Lurk, you and Maha with honesty, respect and courtesy, being
neither condescending, arrogant, or abusive. Then again, I'm not here to
necessarily defend Eckankar. I can share what my experience has been, thus
far, with this path, and that's all I claim to know. Nothing is 100% bad,
and neither is anything 100% perfect.
> Sharon's posts invoke hatred and bitterness in YOU. I think her posts come
> across as thought provoking and painstakingly accurate in her quest for
> exposing the "soft white underbelly" of Eckankar. She provides good solid
> information for those who may want to reconsider following the ECK current.
> After all it's not for everyone right? So let's just say she is saving a lot
> of wear and tear on soul to achieve spiritual heights.
Sharon's posts also carry a lot of ugliness, half-truths, twisting of names,
outright slander in some cases, and a basic lack of respect. At the same time,
I have no hatred for Sharon or anyone else on this newsgroup, but I *do* enjoy
the (rare) times when open communication and sharing take place without the
unnecessary name-calling and other garbage.
Frank
SoulWords
>
>But I do know that if I hadn't become an Eckist I would probably be dead by
>this time. I was one wild, crazy son of a bitch.
I could see vestiges of that when i met you
at a seminar, Joey. And now you are
learning to tame all that wildness for a greater good!
And I do know, that even
>today, being an Eckist....listening to the inner guidance of
theMahanta....makes me a better human being. There is no doubt in my mind
about that.
>
>And it's impossible for me to imagine, with what I know about Eckankar, that
>there is not one person on the face of the earth who would not be better off
>spiritually by knowing the Mahanta.
Yes- not by "knowing" the suppositions, opinions, emotional reactions,
theoretical
motivations,etc. that folks like to assume
is the Mahanta.
Best, David
Frank H. Weeden
>
> But I do know that if I hadn't become an Eckist I would probably be dead by
> today, being an Eckist....listening to the inner guidance of the
> Mahanta....makes me a better human being. There is no doubt in my mind about
> that.
Jeez, Joey... I could have written those exact words about myself. LOL
The fact that I'm alive convinces me that miracles *DO* happen! <G>
All The Best,
Typhoon Frank <G>
Frank H. Weeden
<snip>
> Eckankar is disgusting.
We see reflected in others, that which is in our own hearts.
Rich
> Your saying I use false assumptions in my hypothetical example? Hey...
> it's my hypothetical example, I can assume anything I want to make a
> point.
That's _my_ point!
> Gawd Rich, I simply created two categories to illustrate point. Making
> them extreme is for illustrative purposes.
That's my point.
> Sometimes it goes without saying that in
> the real world such hard categories do not exist.
<SNIP>
> Although I would guess his personal dissonance and deep
> unhealed wounds...
"In the real world" you have no idea whether Paul had any "dissonance
and deep unhealed wounds". You have no way on knowing his feelings or
motivations.
> I can not say for sure this is true,...
That's my point. You make up hypothetical examples taking the extreme
view and use that as your argument to disparage Eckankar.
> I knew when I wrote this, there was going to be someone who stood up and
> proclaimed me as the one who is projecting and such. It is no surprise
> it was you Rich. <g>
Yep, I got your number. You can fool some of the people some of the
time...;-)
> Yes, I have projected many things on to many people in my life. I have
> projected things here on to people in this newsgroups. Sometimes in the
> heat of an argument I will notice my projecting and and defensiveness.
> The way I look at it, I figure, why not honor such projecting...it
> brings out into the light of day my silent assumptions and beliefs about
> myself and others which can then be inspected and correct if desired.
> This is a good thing.
I agree. But when these are pointed out as the props of assumptive
arguments, you categorically deny it. (See the Blind Eye thread .)
> It's better than let's say...acting "spiritually
> perfect" all the time.
In terms of getting what you project, aspiring to perfection seems a
better endeavor than fabricating critical commentary.
> Perhaps you should try a different
> line of argumentation to refute the points I raised. <gg>
Your projections of hypothetical extremes? No thanks.
Rich
> It happens all the time here. Once a detractor pinpoints a defect or flaw in
> the ECK teachings, the usual response is usually non-sequiter,
> condescending, or character assassination. Nobody on a..r.e. to date has
> seemed to be able to respond to a direct question without making a detour.
Who do you think you are kidding?:) Anyone who reads here for a while
can see this is not true.
> Incidentally, the detractors who make the most sense are the most hated! All
> of you would love to see Mahavanana and arelurker disappear. Their posts are
> lucid, to the point, and virtually paint you in the corner when they post.
ROTFLMAO
> I think her posts come
> across as thought provoking and painstakingly accurate...
Alfie, I know you are more intelligent than that.
> What problem, Windy? It seems that you have a problem with Sharon. She is
> simply sharing what she has learned after being in Eckankar for 15 years.
She very rarely shares what Eckankar taught her for 15 years. That is
why some question her mental state. She often posts in a
disrespectfully, vile and disgusting manner with exaggerations,
half-truths and blatantly fabricated misrepresentations. Then again,
sometimes she is quite lucid and personable like she was before you
became her Master.
Sharon
w...@achilles.net wrote:
> CB wrote:
> >
> > It is a streamlined path to God without the wear and tear.
>
> walk that lonesome valley...nobody else can walk it for you" Being
> streamlined does not mean the same as being easy.
<yawn> 20 minutes a day...$130 a year...dream your way to
heaven...god I am SO tired of posting eckquotes....
Your reward...you get stroked by each other & a schizo in MN.
>
> > Judging by the attitude and demeanor of a.r.e. Eckists, I would say that
> > you are all pretty much clueless, verbose, sarcastic, vindictive, sneaky
> > and immoral in your postings, which contradicts most of the main tenets
> > of your chosen path.
>
> I think you are generalizing unfairly. Easier to get a reaction from
> that, I suppose, than from a more accurate but less sweeping statement.
I have to agree with CB, especially about the eckists who post here
at ARE, and who have been doing it for a long time. I was really
naive when I came here as an eckist last year. It was seeing how the
actions of my fellow eckies contradicted what I thought it was all
about that started to open my eyes...
And in the real world? Well...information is highly controlled. I'd
say that if eckies knew the truth about the organization...they'd either
get out like I did....or turn into another "defender of the faith" like
we see here...
Eckankar is disgusting.
Sharon
http://www.delphi.com/eckankartruth
Sharon
fisa...@united.net wrote:
>
> Sharon's posts also carry a lot of ugliness, half-truths, twisting of names,
> outright slander in some cases, and a basic lack of respect.
You're right here, Frank...but I *would* like to point out
that much of the ugliness and half-truths are in the eckquotes
I post.
You're right, I have absolutely no respect for Eckankar. Or,
for many of its fanatical fundamentalist "leaders" ... for
example, most of the HIs and "Clergy" who post here. They
could dish out their own ugliness, half-truths, lies, and yes...
outright slander...
And...they've been doing it for a long time. I'm relatively
new at it.
I was raised with a great saying (which I must say, I got
extremely sick of hearing!): Two wrongs don't make a right.
But, here at a.r.e. (and in the real world) eckists rationalize
everything with that "holy eck mission" bullshit.
They can dish it out, but they certainly can't take it...
By the way, although I'm sure this is a much longer thread, it
shows up as two separate posts at Deja. You know...if you're
a detractor and for some reason, your posts don't show up in
the "proper" place... well, that means you're part of an
insidious Branch Lane Davidian plot or something...
ALL eckists, including you, Frank, invariably will stick to the
official eck party line no matter what. Oh, except Dave Barnes,
earlier today...well, he did that last summer, too, under a
different name. They did their best to rip him to pieces. I
was an eckist back then, and it disgusted me.
Other than that, eckists are going to stick to that "it works
for me" and "it's all on the inner" stuff...refusing to address
the issues that former eckists bring up here.
Why? Because of the cultic mind-control, and the dependency of
eckists on their membership, and their "connection" with Harold
Klemp, who in my opinion is to be pitied...and avoided like the
plague.
At the same time,
> I have no hatred for Sharon or anyone else on this newsgroup, but I *do* enjoy the (rare) times when open communication and sharing take >place without the unnecessary name-calling and other garbage.
A.R.E. thankfully will NEVER become like those highly
controlled private ecklists...
To the eckist mind, "Open Communication" is anything that
is going to get people calling the 800 number.
I don't hate anyone either...but, I do feel loathing and
revulsion. That's something that I only used to feel for
child molesters. And...ECKANKULT starts out with the
Teenie 1 discourses/coloring book...it's disgusting, the
way it's subtly brainwashing the child, and creating worship
and dependency on that schizo in Minneapolis.
NAMBLA works for many, too...and hey, Hitler got voted into
office, didn't he? Eckankar isn't much different from either.
Sharon
Sharon
"ken" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if Lurk is projecting his own "stuff" onto others or not. Maybe
> he's just constructing a scenario that sounds good to him. I do know that his explanations of the dynamics of Paul Twitchell and Eckankar don't fit the situation at all.
On the contrary, Ken....Lurk's explanations fit perfectly.
If anything, he's much too kind and diplomatic...