"Rama's Mission" to Shiva7

[KMerrymoon]

Shiva7 wrote:
>I would like to make some comments that Dean didn't concerning your post:

Doug;
>>If you study this carefully, I think you will find there is a bit more
>>fictionalization here, by Kirpal, than you are implying. It is not Rai Salig
>>Ram's faction that is standing alone, as you say. Each of the Radhasoami
>>groups see it a little differently.

Shiva7:
>The point, I believe, that Dean was making is that the Agra lineages consider
>Shiv Dayal to be the Shabd incarnate, and a one time thing. The Beas lineages,
>on the other hand, hold that Shiv Dayal was a Satguru, but that he is no
>greater or lesser than the Satguru that walks among us today.

Doug:
I agree, the Soamibagh, Agra, teachers do hold a very idealistic concept of
Shiv Dayal, although not a one time thing as you suggest, since they see Kabir
in the same light. This is probably as a result of Rai Salig Ram's very close,
personal, relationship and love for Shiv Dayal.

And yes, the Beas teachers do see Shiv Dayal more as another Satguru, like many
others in the Sant Mat tradition, but this is largely due to Jaimal Singh's
somewhat distant relationship with, Shiv Dayal, and Sikh upbringing.

On the other hand, Kirpal paints a very idealistic picture as well, by
suggesting that there has been one lineage, with no interruptions and breaks
between teachers, since Kabir. This may also be due to Kirpal's very close,
intimate relationship with Sawan Singh, his teacher, causing him to believe
such a close, physical, relationship was necessary.

>>Doug:
>>While I agree that Kirpal wanted to rein in the sexual procilivities of his
>>Western baby boomers, his restrictions that he imposed were also in line with
>>traditional spiritual austerities of India. Paul was much more a product of
>>America.

Shiva7:
>Though I agree with you that the Beas lineages teach Sant Mat according to the
>Sihk religion, but I would also point out that they teach according to the
>principle of Yoga, as a science. Sexual energy is related to the kundalini. If
>you are trying to raise the kundalini up to the third eye focus, than focusing
>this energy through the second chakra (the sexual organ) is detrimental to the
>practice. As such, it doesn't matter if your American or Indian, there is a
>scientific purpose (given the theory of Yoga) to this.

Doug:
I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, but, Sant Mat makes quite a
definite break from other Yoga teachings, in that they put no attention on the
lower chakras, but start only with the Tisral Til, and go up from there. The
focus of the Kundalini is discouraged. This is the same with ECKANKAR.

The focus on limiting sex, by Sant Mat teachers, is simply to prevent the
outflow of energies into this world, and to use those energies rather to focus
upon higher states of consciousness. ECKANKAR, teaches more along the line
that God can be experienced through the body and its senses, just as it can
through the inner senses. Both experiences can elevate Soul, and connect Soul
to the ECK, or Shabd.

Shiva7:
>I haven't read much, if any, of Eckankar stuff, but the impression that I have
>recieved from Sri Harold, "The Tiger's Fang", and the folks here on a.r.e. is
>that Eckankar is a religion and that the Eck Master holds the one and only
>Truth, which no one can recieve except through him.

Doug:
Well, getting an understanding about ECKANKAR from a.r.e., is sort of like
getting an understanding about MicroSoft by talking to Sun Microsystems. You
might hear some interesting things here, but it will take a little more study
on your own to get the whole picture.

However, rather than answering what ECKANKAR teaches, I will answer what I know
from my own experience. I would say that it is fair to call ECKANKAR a
religion, but I don't agree that the ECK Master is the only one to hold truth,
or that everyone must receive truth through him.

Shiva7:
>I do not accept that anyone, including Sant Mat, has a monopoly on Truth.
Some
>souls are better affiliated with the Truth, some have even communed with such,
>I hope. My only premise to deciding weather someone is better affiliated with
>the Truth than I am is that I accept nothing on blind faith. My conviction is
>based upon my experience, the rest is theory subject to change.
>
>What is Eckankar's stance on this?

Doug:
I agree, there are no monopolies on truth. And the outer teachings, are not
sacred, like they are in many other religions, because it is the inner
connection and our personal experiences that are the basis for the spiritual
path. Paul Twitchell said we must always start with doubt, and I believe that
those who question and challenge the teachings in the beginning will end up
understanding their meaning far better than those who try to adopt the
teachings based on faith.

A true teacher should not cause you to gain faith in them at the expense of
your own faith in yourself. Although you might see something greater in them,
the true teacher knows that this is still your own reflection, and they will
return this image back to you when you are ready to accept it as yourself.
First, however, we must come to know ourselves very well, meaning both our
higher nature and our lower nature.

We cannot attain the higher states until we have first accepted our lower self,
our shadow, and accepted it as our self, as well. Once we have learned this, we
will also be able to see and understand that even spiritual teachers have a
lower side, make mistakes and have faults, but that this does not prevent them
from retaining and remembering their higher connection.

The realities of the spiritual path are not always easy to understand,
especially with our modern, scientifically oriented minds. The proof of
spiritual realities cannot be obtained outwardly, but only in the laboratory of
our inner selves. While it is possible to learn about the stages and
indications of the inner planes of spiritual reality through trial and error,
it could take lifetimes on our own. The easier way is to associate with those
who know the path, and can assist us both outwardly and inwardly.

[Dean Cooper]

> Shiva7:
> >Though I agree with you that the Beas lineages teach Sant Mat according to the
> >Sihk religion, but I would also point out that they teach according to the
> >principle of Yoga, as a science. Sexual energy is related to the kundalini. If
> >you are trying to raise the kundalini up to the third eye focus, than focusing
> >this energy through the second chakra (the sexual organ) is detrimental to the
> >practice. As such, it doesn't matter if your American or Indian, there is a
> >scientific purpose (given the theory of Yoga) to this.
>
> Doug:
> I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, but, Sant Mat makes quite a
> definite break from other Yoga teachings, in that they put no attention on the
> lower chakras, but start only with the Tisral Til, and go up from there. The
> focus of the Kundalini is discouraged. This is the same with ECKANKAR.
>
> The focus on limiting sex, by Sant Mat teachers, is simply to prevent the
> outflow of energies into this world, and to use those energies rather to focus
> upon higher states of consciousness. ECKANKAR, teaches more along the line
> that God can be experienced through the body and its senses, just as it can
> through the inner senses. Both experiences can elevate Soul, and connect Soul
> to the ECK, or Shabd.

I see the point Shiva7 is making. While Sant Mat skips the lower chakras, and goes
straight for the third eye, that doesn't negate the existence of all seven chakras.
Too much attention given to sex, while increasing the strength of the ability to
concentrate ( one of the results of simran ), would certainly tend to lend strength
to the sexual side. While it probably wouldn't lead to the actual arousal of
kundalini, it would be detrimental to further inner progress. If someone actually
started thinking intensely about sex while trying meditate, it could awaken
kundalini, and not in a good way.

Dean

[KMerrymoon]

DEAN WROTE:
>I see the point Shiva7 is making. While Sant Mat skips the lower chakras, and
goes
>straight for the third eye, that doesn't negate the existence of all seven
chakras.
>Too much attention given to sex, while increasing the strength of the ability
to
>concentrate ( one of the results of simran ), would certainly tend to lend
strength
>to the sexual side. While it probably wouldn't lead to the actual arousal of
>kundalini, it would be detrimental to further inner progress. If someone
actually
>started thinking intensely about sex while trying meditate, it could awaken
>kundalini, and not in a good way.

DOUG:
Dean, yes that was what I thought Shiva7 meant, or at least pretty close to
this, when I first read it. But this all has the sound of guesses and
justification. Like Shiva7 also said, we should base our beliefs upon our own
experiences, and what we know personally.

My experience shows me that sex is a natural expression. Sure, it can become
obsessive. So can buying clothes, or eating chocolate. Thinking about sex
during meditation does not, of itself, raise the kundalini in any dangerous
way, but it can certainly be a distraction toward a more useful focus. But
then, thinking about problems at work can do the same thing.

One of the concerns I have about Sant Mat's message about sex is that it often
creates a fearful feeling toward, what is really a very natural thing. This
fear is then used to help keep the attention upon higher aspects of life. But,
from what I've seen, this fear has a way of accumulating unconscious energies,
and holding us back, as well.

The raising of the kundalini is a very dangerous and difficult practice. The
Yogis who practiced this, centuries ago, learned that the person must be
completely pure in his desires, and extremely careful about what he thought
about, or else this snake-like force could do real damage to their bodies and
mind. It is possible, that the practice of fear toward sex is a hold-over, in
India, from these lessons of the past, but they really don't apply to Sant Mat,
or ECKANKAR, as it is taught today. Moderation is important, but fearfulness
and obsession can both create problems. In fact, the two extremes are really
two sides of the same coin.

[SAMOREZ]

>
>The raising of the kundalini is a very dangerous and difficult practice

"Kundalini, Mata Shakti, Namo, Namo!!"

I offer you my head. Your danger makes me pay attention, your difficulty is my
wet stone. Please use my head for a seat if it pleases you.

Sam

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

[Shiva7]

>I might be misunderstanding what you mean here, but, Sant Mat makes quite a
>definite break from other Yoga teachings, in that they put no attention on
>the
>lower chakras, but start only with the Tisral Til, and go up from there. The
>focus of the Kundalini is discouraged. This is the same with ECKANKAR.

I apologize. I misused "kundalini" in attempting to make this statment.
I would mention that the energies of kundalini and prana, though not awakened
through this meditation, are from my experience simply distinctions of the
Logos, particularly with what regulates the body. At the Third Eye, the Shabd
has not split into these different systems of energy on its way downward. Thus,
by concentrating the surat there (instead of below) there is no necessity in
breath control, asanas, etc. to "die while living". Though this may be a break
from the Yogic teachings, all in all it is simply an evolution of method.

Anyway, you have basically stated in your next line what I was trying to say:

>The focus on limiting sex, by Sant Mat teachers, is simply to prevent the
>outflow of energies into this world,

Concerning the next part:

>ECKANKAR, teaches more along the line
>that God can be experienced through the body and its senses, just as it can
>through the inner senses. Both experiences can elevate Soul, and connect Soul
>to the ECK, or Shabd.

Are you saying that Eckankar teaches that (for example) through sexual
experiences one can experience Shabd? Could you elaborate?
I think that since the Shabd is the basic vibration of all creation, all
experiences (up to the point of communion with God) are experiences of the
Logos. On this level, I'm typing on a computer. On another level, I am
recieving the teachings I have learned from my Master. On another level, I am
comunicating with you in pure thought, without the limitations of physical
space. I don't really know where "outer" ends and "inner" begins.

>I don't agree that the ECK Master is the only one to hold truth,
>or that everyone must receive truth through him.

I base this on what I have read on "Klemp Critique" over in David Lane's
website. According to the author, these are excerpts of letters that Klemp
writes to the high initiates. I.e.:

"The silver cord has been severed for the bodies of Christianity, Buddhism,
Judaism, even to the extent that the recent offshoots of ECK, such as the Sant
Mat groups, have so little of the spiritual essence in them that one could
spend a lifetime in them and not see any real results. This is not to say that
only people in ECK will find enlightenment, but the members of the orthodox
groups find it despite their church. If their future depended upon the
nourishment that is in the bibles of men, they would starve in spirit."

I know that outer traditional religion cares more for the collection plate than
spiritual development, but the fact remains that it implies that Eckankar is
"holier than thou" in comparrison to anything else out there. What's up with
that?

I whole-heartedly agree with the rest of your letter. I have been an initiate
of Sant Mat (specifically Sant Darshan Singh) for the majority of my life. I
have studied a lot of other religions and spiritual disciplines, but have
always found my way back to this. Even in the study of other beliefs, it felt
like I never left. I do not think that this is because Rama necessarily planted
the seed as Paul and Harold have put it, instead I think that the Shabd or Eck
or Logos or whatever is the essence of creation, what else would we have lovers
of God talking about?

Agape.

[Shiva7]

Doug wrote:
>One of the concerns I have about Sant Mat's message about sex is that it
>often
>creates a fearful feeling toward, what is really a very natural thing.

I know what your saying and have had a certain 'danming' feeling about sexual
tendencies, especially when I was a single initiate. I do have to admit that
these same teachings also made me look at the self-centeredness of those
feelings (let's just say procreation wasn't my first thought) and made me treat
women with more respect.

I would say that our culture centers on the erotic form of love than the agapic
form, though both are natural. This isn't an orginal idea, obviously. I don't
know.....

[KMerrymoon]

Shiva7 asked:

>Are you saying that Eckankar teaches that (for example) through sexual
>experiences one can experience Shabd?

Doug:
Not exactly.

Shiva7:
>Could you elaborate?

Doug:
You might say that there are extrovertive mystics and introvertive mystics. The
Sufis have teachings for both types. Gurdjieff, for example, focussed upon
dances and movement, like many of the Sufi teachers have in the past.

If you are teaching children mathematics, some can learn from a purely
intellectual explanation, but most will catch it much quicker by using real
objects, and making real measurements. Then, through this process of actually
counting, multiplying and dividing, the process of mathematics eventually
become internalized.

In the same way, all outer actions contain reflections of the inner. And there
are many who come closer to Shabd in a moment of interaction, than through
hours of meditation. That's why the practice of gazing upon the Master's form,
is recommended in Sant Mat.

So, my point was that in ECKANKAR, the physical is not seen as evil, but as a
container of the spark of God. To see, intimately, that spark in another, is
indeed a spiritual experience.

Shiva7:

>I base this on what I have read on "Klemp Critique" over in David Lane's
>website. According to the author, these are excerpts of letters that Klemp
>writes to the high initiates. I.e.:
>
>"The silver cord has been severed for the bodies of Christianity, Buddhism,
>Judaism, even to the extent that the recent offshoots of ECK, such as the Sant
>Mat groups, have so little of the spiritual essence in them that one could
>spend a lifetime in them and not see any real results. This is not to say that
>only people in ECK will find enlightenment, but the members of the orthodox
>groups find it despite their church. If their future depended upon the
>nourishment that is in the bibles of men, they would starve in spirit."
>
>I know that outer traditional religion cares more for the collection plate
than
>spiritual development, but the fact remains that it implies that Eckankar is
>"holier than thou" in comparrison to anything else out there. What's up with
>that?

Doug:
Yes, it sounds that way. But, whether you've noticed it or not, there are a
number of such quotes in Sant Mat literature as well. Sawan Singh, for example,
used to make similar comments about Christianity, until a number of his
students complained that they were getting a lot of criticisms from their
family and friends about the comments. So, after that, he reserved such
comments for amongst his most dedicated followers, who would understand what he
was saying.

You will notice that the quotes from Harold were not intended for the public.
Therefore he was not saying this to convince anyone, but was speaking to those
who he thought were in agreement with this, and it was part of a larger point
being made. If you read the dozens of books Harold has written, and hundreds of
articles, you will find far more comments where he says almost exactly the
opposite.

I'm not trying to defend Harold here, because I do think there are too many
ECKists who feel they are somehow holier than thou, and comments like these can
reinforce that. But, I also think it very safe to say that most ECKists do not
feel or act this way towards others.

Shiva7:

>I do not think that this is because Rama necessarily planted
>the seed as Paul and Harold have put it, instead I think that the Shabd or Eck
>or Logos or whatever is the essence of creation, what else would we have
lovers
>of God talking about?

Doug:
I liked this, and I agree. I think the historical connectivity has been
overstated. It is the essence that provides the real link and connection.

[Shiva7]

Doug:

>So, my point was that in ECKANKAR, the physical is not seen as evil, but as a
>container of the spark of God. To see, intimately, that spark in another, is
>indeed a spiritual experience.

I have recently been (trying) to read "A Thousand Teachings" by Shankara who,
as you are probably aware, was a Master of Advaita Vadanta. I found it
interesting that among the nondualistic Vadantic philosophers the discussion of
whether the physical is an illusion or not is major discussion. I had always
assumed that it was just a matter of perspective.

I would say in general that the physical realm, and also the astral, causal and
any other plane you could think of up to the Absolute is 'real' in the sense
that it separates the mortal from the immortal, and the Manifest from the
Unmanifest. But that separation is an illusion, on the other hand, because all
'it' is is vibration. Matter is just vibration in particular pattern and
density. The center of a particular particle of that vibration is no-thing or
Absolute.
I don't know why I'm going into depth on this, but oh well.

>In the same way, all outer actions contain reflections of the inner. And
>there
>are many who come closer to Shabd in a moment of interaction, than through
>hours of meditation. That's why the practice of gazing upon the Master's
>form,
>is recommended in Sant Mat.

Given what I've written, I believe actions while not in meditation can interact
with Shabd, in fact every action, by definition, is an interaction with Shabd.
But I know what your saying. Let's not split hairs.

I guess this one of those non-polemic days. I appreciate you taking your time
to explain this idea to me.

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Hmmm...his private face is different than his public face. What does
that tell you?

>
> I'm not trying to defend Harold here, because I do think there are too many
> ECKists who feel they are somehow holier than thou, and comments like these can
> reinforce that.

How about: they feel holier than thou BECAUSE OF comments like these and
the many others in the texts in which eckist internalize the correct and
intented interpretation. Maybe Harold has a holier than thou
attitude...perhaps it's subtle.

> But, I also think it very safe to say that most ECKists do not
> feel or act this way towards others.

I experienced the opposite. Most eckist I observed had that holier than
thou attitude because it is so ingrained in the teachings. If anyone
should require more quotes, I would be more than happy to provide some
from both Paul and Harold expressing this exalted status of eckists.

Lurk

[Zaz9 13]

>arel...@mindspring.com
>Snip<

Even the New Mystic World (March 1998) has more of these articles for the
members, Lurk. It never ends for those who are in agreement.... :o)

[Rich]

Zaz9 13(X-Tuza Traveler) wrote:

> Even the New Mystic World (March 1998) has more of these[holier than
> thou attitude] articles for the members, Lurk. It never ends for those

> who are in agreement.... :o)

So TT, you're a member. Why? Curious that you would be a member when
you don't even believe in the ECK Masters. Seems like pious fraud to
me.

I just read thru that Mystic World with an objective eye. Even for
those like you who are in disagreement, I couldn't find one article that
suggested that Eckists are better than anyone else. It often dismays me
when detractors make false statements like these when there is enough
real stuff<g> to criticize. In Harold's main article his point was that
we should not rely on other people, even him, but should learn to help
ourselves and master our own lives. The Wisdom Note speaks of change
and respecting others beliefs. I respect your beliefs TT, but not your
misrepresentations of Eckankar.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Zaz9 13 wrote:
>
> >Zaz9 13(X-Tuza Traveler) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Even the New Mystic World (March 1998) has more of these[holier than
> >> thou attitude] articles for the members, Lurk. It never ends for those
> >> who are in agreement.... :o)
> >
> >So TT, you're a member. Why? Curious that you would be a member when
> >you don't even believe in the ECK Masters. Seems like pious fraud to
> >me.

> Well, Zaz9 13 is a member :o). Why no?,.... gets one into fancy hotels where
> the women are always very receptive. :o) I do not believe in any masters, and
> surely not eck masters. I find all religions to be distortions of the
> subjective or inner and in many cases the outer also. So in not seeming pious,
> I know my own experiences (inner/outer) and beliefs, and the limitations in
> eckankar and its own living eck master. Yet it will remain as a belief system
> I hold dear in some ways for I spent many years passing through its beliefs and
> limitations. I suppose you would feel it is a fraud in your belief of "a
> detractor" that remains recieving the "secret" information. I no longer receive
> any discourses, having studied all discourses that eckankar offers or ever had
> to offer. It had or does not have "secret" information. There is no such thing
> as secret information, it is all for the noticing and remembering. :o) I guess
> I would be "a detractor" in your terms as I am not a true believer. But I do
> not follow or believe any religions or paths, having studied them all. It
> remains in trusting self. And each will find aquire beliefs and belief systems
> accepting distortions many times as they reach a comfort zone, so to speak. No
> one exists in the physical without beliefs no matter how much they believe
> this. :o)

>
> >
> >I just read thru that Mystic World with an objective eye. Even for
> >those like you who are in disagreement, I couldn't find one article that
> >suggested that Eckists are better than anyone else. It often dismays me
> >when detractors make false statements like these when there is enough
> >real stuff<g> to criticize. In Harold's main article his point was that
> >we should not rely on other people, even him, but should learn to help
> >ourselves and master our own lives. The Wisdom Note speaks of change
> >and respecting others beliefs. I respect your beliefs TT, but not your
> >misrepresentations of Eckankar.
> >--

> I respect your beliefs also, Rich. I re-read this Mystic World issue and it
> would not appear obvious to 99.9% of members. It is always in the subtle
> beliefs expoused. HK's main point was to rely on yourself while pointing out
> the living eck master can work on the (inner and outer) whereas others cannot.
> Still a subtle setting hmself as the "most", and keeper of the "holy ghost". It
> is my experience that the living eck master remains an "inner tourist", as all
> the self procliamed masters seem to do within their various beliefs systems and
> the handed down distortions of inner vs outer. But what the hay...?...."easy
> life, easy money.". :o)

I agree with Zaz, Rich. This quote came to mind when reading the passage
above.

"It is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively evaluate a belief
system
from within it. Yet it can often seem unfair to judge belief systems
from
the point of view of an outside observer. Most human beings uphold
blatant
irrational beliefs, for better or for worse. Better that we scrutinize
our
selves and our own groups regarding our own weaknesses and learn from
them rather than have them blow up in our faces later. "

Lama Surya Das

In an article "Avoiding Pitfalls Along the Path" at
http://www.fom.org/avoiding.html

[Zaz9 13]

Z

[zep...@connectexpress.com]

In article <34EB63...@mindspring.com>,
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>

> I agree with Zaz, Rich. This quote came to mind when reading the passage
> above.
>
> "It is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively evaluate a belief
> system from within it. Yet it can often seem unfair to judge belief
> systems from the point of view of an outside observer. Most human
> beings uphold blatant irrational beliefs, for better or for worse.
> Better that we scrutinize our selves and our own groups regarding our
> own weaknesses and learn from them rather than have them blow up in
> our faces later. "
>
>
Lama Surya Das
>
> In an article "Avoiding Pitfalls Along the Path" at
> http://www.fom.org/avoiding.html

Interesting site! Here are couple of questions from his
suggestions for evaluating a spiritual group:

Questions to help the assessment process

1. Who is the leader?
What are his/her background and qualifications?
Have you relied solely on trust that all of the information you
were given is true or have you done independent investigation?
Do you feel pressure to accept and not question at all?
Is it possible that there are misrepresentations or falsehoods?
Is there external corroboration for extraordinary claims of
accomplishment or are they simply his/her say-so?
If "miracles" have been performed, can they be replicated under
open observation or even under scientific conditions?
Are there other explanations for the "miracles," such as magic
tricks, hypnosis, etc.?
If there is a former leader or member, have you sought him or
her out to hear for yourself critical information?
If not, are you afraid to trust your ability to discern the
truthfulness of what you learn?
If you find yourself saying that you don't care if there are
major deceptions, ask yourself: if you knew this information
before you became involved, would you have even bothered to
make a commitment of time and money?

2. Are there exclusive claims made to wisdom, knowledge, love, and
truth?
If so, the burden of proof is on the leader to demonstrate his or
her superiority, not on members to disprove it. A truly developed
"spiritual" being exudes love, compassion, and humility. Any person
who claims to be "superior" but does not practice what they preach
is of questionable character. There is never incongruency between
words and deeds. A person who uses fear and phobia indoctrination
to control followers demonstrates insecurity and lack of spiritual
maturity.

Lots of good stuff there -- check it out!

Kate

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

[rsm...@aloha.net]

In article <19980219023...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

zaz...@aol.com (Zaz9 13) wrote:
>
> >Zaz9 13(X-Tuza Traveler) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Even the New Mystic World (March 1998) has more of these[holier than
> >> thou attitude] articles for the members, Lurk. It never ends for those
> >> who are in agreement.... :o)
> >
> >So TT, you're a member. Why? Curious that you would be a member when
> >you don't even believe in the ECK Masters. Seems like pious fraud to
> >me.

> Well, Zaz9 13 is a member :o). Why no?,.... gets one into fancy hotels where
> the women are always very receptive. :o)

Nice dodge. Are you that hard up that you need to approach women with false
pretenses?<g>

> I do not believe in any masters, and
> surely not eck masters. I find all religions to be distortions of the
> subjective or inner and in many cases the outer also.

So why _do_ you subscribe as a member of Eckankar?

> I guess
> I would be "a detractor" in your terms as I am not a true believer.

I consider Eckankar detractors as those who attack Eckankar, Eckist and Eck
Masters. I'm not a "true believer" either.

> But I do
> not follow or believe any religions or paths, having studied them all.

Ha! ALL? Now there's a credible statement.<GGG>

> It remains in trusting self. And each will find aquire beliefs and belief
systems
> accepting distortions many times as they reach a comfort zone, so to speak.
No
> one exists in the physical without beliefs no matter how much they believe
> this. :o)

That's what *you* believe.<g>

> >I just read thru that Mystic World with an objective eye. Even for
> >those like you who are in disagreement, I couldn't find one article that
> >suggested that Eckists are better than anyone else. It often dismays me
> >when detractors make false statements like these when there is enough
> >real stuff<g> to criticize. In Harold's main article his point was that
> >we should not rely on other people, even him, but should learn to help
> >ourselves and master our own lives. The Wisdom Note speaks of change
> >and respecting others beliefs. I respect your beliefs TT, but not your
> >misrepresentations of Eckankar.

> I respect your beliefs also, Rich. I re-read this Mystic World issue and it

> would not appear obvious to 99.9% of members. It is always in the subtle
> beliefs expoused. HK's main point was to rely on yourself while pointing out
> the living eck master can work on the (inner and outer) whereas others
cannot.

There you go again! You would think that having _just_ called you on it, you
would read a little more carefully. Some people see what they want to, no
matter what's on the printed page... or do you purposefully misrepresent what
Harold says?

He did not use the word "cannot" but said that "not too many" can. That means
that he believes that others besides himself _can_ teach inwardly, just the
opposite of what you tried to pass off here. Purposefully or not, that's an
example of what I see as being a detractor.

--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Rich]

zep...@connectexpress.com wrote:

> Interesting site! Here are couple of questions from his
> suggestions for evaluating a spiritual group:

OK, I'll give it a quick run through.

> Questions to help the assessment process
>
> 1. Who is the leader?

Harold Klemp

> What are his/her background and qualifications?

Farm boy. Seminary college. Thirty years in Eckankar.

> Have you relied solely on trust that all of the information you
> were given is true

No.

> or have you done independent investigation?

Yes.

> Do you feel pressure to accept and not question at all?

Never.

> Is it possible that there are misrepresentations or falsehoods?

As in everything, yes.

> Is there external corroboration for extraordinary claims of
> accomplishment or are they simply his/her say-so?

Sometimes and sometimes.

> If "miracles" have been performed, can they be replicated under
> open observation or even under scientific conditions?

What a dumb question.:-)

> Are there other explanations for the "miracles," such as magic
> tricks, hypnosis, etc.?

There are _always_ other 'explanations'.

> If there is a former leader or member, have you sought him or
> her out to hear for yourself critical information?

Yes.

> If you find yourself saying that you don't care if there are
> major deceptions, ask yourself: if you knew this information
> before you became involved, would you have even bothered to
> make a commitment of time and money?

Ahh, at last a good question. Well, I didn't have to make any
commitment of time or money, but if I knew then what I know now...?
Probably. My experiences with Paul were enough for me to recognize that
there was a lot that I could learn from being with this Being.

> 2. Are there exclusive claims made to wisdom, knowledge, love, and
> truth?

In some places and in other the universal availability is made clear.

> If so, the burden of proof is on the leader to demonstrate his or
> her superiority, not on members to disprove it. A truly developed
> "spiritual" being exudes love, compassion, and humility.

That has been my experiences with all three Eck Masters. Although being
human, I know that they have their moments.

> Any person
> who claims to be "superior" but does not practice what they preach
> is of questionable character.

Harold generally practices what he 'preaches'.

> There is never incongruency between
> words and deeds.

Nonsense! Who is perfect?

> A person who uses fear and phobia indoctrination
> to control followers demonstrates insecurity and lack of spiritual
> maturity.

Definitely not Harold that I know.

So, my assessment after these thought provoking<g> questions? ->
Eckankar works for me.

[Rich]

Zaz9 13 wrote:

> You are being trained well by nicely placed adjectives in your responses. :o)

Your are losing it boy. I'm being trained by an adjective that placed
itself nicely? ROTFL

> Your assuming "false pretenses"....

I assumed nothing. _You_ said that even though you "do not believe in

any masters, and surely not eck masters. I find all religions to be

distortions"... you used Eckankar membership because it "gets one into
fancy hotels where the women are always very receptive." Of course none
of this is true, you were just spewing BS. I don't know why I let
myself get sucked into these ridiculous dialogs. I guess that it might
help others see your true colors.

> ...reflects you very much and your "holy" pretenses. :o)

Holy?<VBG> You are making less and less sense. Been drinkin'?

> And if you truely believed that eck was the "holy spirit" or "life force", how
> can anyone attack it? This "flexiable" belief really has me laughing. :oD Oh
> let us not forget the kal and his job. NO kal, no karma, no linear lifetimes
> and there is no need for a master or mahanta.....

You are rambling on with more nonsense here.

>> ...I do

>> not follow or believe any religions or paths, having studied them all.

> >Ha! ALL? Now there's a credible statement.<GGG>

> More adjectives....

What? I shouldn't use adjectives? You have a problem with adjectives?
I thought you said they are training me well?

> >There you go again! You would think that having _just_ called you on it, you
> >would read a little more carefully. Some people see what they want to, no
> >matter what's on the printed page... or do you purposefully misrepresent what
> >Harold says?
> >
> >He did not use the word "cannot" but said that "not too many" can. That
> >means
> >that he believes that others besides himself _can_ teach inwardly, just the
> >opposite of what you tried to pass off here. Purposefully or not, that's an
> >example of what I see as being a detractor.

> There you go again! Some people see only what they want to on a printed page.
> Of course it will always aligned with their beliefs.

I was not talking about beliefs but the *actual* words that he wrote.

<snip all the BS which Lurk laps up>

Harold wrote:

"Yet a true master will also teach his students inwardly. (Not too many
wanna-bes can do that.)"

Construe that any way you want but it's plain for anyone to see. There
are no hidden meanings or subtle inferences.

OK Lurk, when you read that direct quote, is Harold saying that "the

living eck master can work on the (inner and outer) whereas others

cannot.", as Tuza Traveler insists he is? From these two sentences
above out of the whole Mystic World he said, "the New Mystic World

(March 1998) has more of these[holier than thou attitude] articles"

Admit it TT. You exaggerated. Be honest and apologize and salvage some
respect. I know this is just a fun game for you with your cutesy
sarcasms but making up stuff that is not there only makes you look
foolish. Your point may be well taken, there are statements in the
Eckankar literature that can be interpreted as a 'holier than thou'
attitude but don't grasp at straws that aren't there. There are people
who lurk here that are taking a serious look at the teachings of
Eckankar. If you play the clown with these kinds of obvious
misrepresentation, you will be ignored. Of course Sam and Lurk will be
always be pleased and support you no matter what.<G>

Good luck with the girls. Hope you find some love there.

[Zaz9 13]

> rsm...@aloha.net wrote:

> zaz...@aol.com (Zaz9 13) wrote:
>>
>> >Zaz9 13(X-Tuza Traveler) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Even the New Mystic World (March 1998) has more of these[holier than
>> >> thou attitude] articles for the members, Lurk. It never ends for those
>> >> who are in agreement.... :o)
>> >
>> >So TT, you're a member. Why? Curious that you would be a member when
>> >you don't even believe in the ECK Masters. Seems like pious fraud to
>> >me.
>

>> Well, Zaz9 13 is a member :o). Why no?,.... gets one into fancy hotels
>where

>> the women are always very receptive. :o)
>
>Nice dodge. Are you that hard up that you need to approach women with false
>pretenses?<g>
>

You are being trained well by nicely placed adjectives in your responses. :o)
Your assuming "false pretenses" reflects you very much and your "holy"
pretenses. :o)
I might add that the first eck master was one who also liked somethings "up
hard", even as I do at times. :o)

>
>> I do not believe in any masters, and
>> surely not eck masters. I find all religions to be distortions of the
>> subjective or inner and in many cases the outer also.
>
>So why _do_ you subscribe as a member of Eckankar?
>
>> I guess
>> I would be "a detractor" in your terms as I am not a true believer.
>
>I consider Eckankar detractors as those who attack Eckankar, Eckist and Eck
>Masters. I'm not a "true believer" either.
>

I consider eckankar true believers as those who defend beliefs, distortions and
supersitions while passing the same on to others.

And if you truely believed that eck was the "holy spirit" or "life force", how
can anyone attack it? This "flexiable" belief really has me laughing. :oD Oh
let us not forget the kal and his job. NO kal, no karma, no linear lifetimes
and there is no need for a master or mahanta.....

>> But I do

>> not follow or believe any religions or paths, having studied them all.
>
>Ha! ALL? Now there's a credible statement.<GGG>
>

More adjectives. Well, I will say as many as available to my research sources.
Hmm, with the net now those sources go far beyond the ability of PT to "study
all religions".... just a thought passing by...

>
>> It remains in trusting self. And each will find aquire beliefs and belief
>systems
>> accepting distortions many times as they reach a comfort zone, so to speak.
>No
>> one exists in the physical without beliefs no matter how much they believe
>> this. :o)
>
>That's what *you* believe.<g>

:oD yes or what *they* or *you* may not believe.
And your beliefs draw and form your experiences. And I know the "official"
eckist line on this comment. :oD

>> >I just read thru that Mystic World with an objective eye. Even for
>> >those like you who are in disagreement, I couldn't find one article that
>> >suggested that Eckists are better than anyone else. It often dismays me
>> >when detractors make false statements like these when there is enough
>> >real stuff<g> to criticize. In Harold's main article his point was that
>> >we should not rely on other people, even him, but should learn to help
>> >ourselves and master our own lives. The Wisdom Note speaks of change
>> >and respecting others beliefs. I respect your beliefs TT, but not your
>> >misrepresentations of Eckankar.
>
>> I respect your beliefs also, Rich. I re-read this Mystic World issue and it
>> would not appear obvious to 99.9% of members. It is always in the subtle
>> beliefs expoused. HK's main point was to rely on yourself while pointing
>out

>> the living eck master can work on the (inner and outer) whereas others
>cannot.
>

>There you go again! You would think that having _just_ called you on it, you
>would read a little more carefully. Some people see what they want to, no
>matter what's on the printed page... or do you purposefully misrepresent what
>Harold says?
>
>He did not use the word "cannot" but said that "not too many" can. That
>means
>that he believes that others besides himself _can_ teach inwardly, just the
>opposite of what you tried to pass off here. Purposefully or not, that's an
>example of what I see as being a detractor.

There you go again! Some people see only what they want to on a printed page.
Of course it will always aligned with their beliefs.

Let us take a closer look at what HK says. We will leave out the headline for
the article for now. But his thing you are passing off him saying that others
_others_ besides himself _can_ teach inwardly is surrounded by as many
adjectives and beliefs that you seem to view as invisable. And that you are
passing off as not quite what is said about others.
Right after stating that, in eckankar, individuals get a lot of assistance from
the being called _mahanta, the living eck master_ and that he is a outer and
inner master who has _the spiritual power_, that he is also the wayshower and
the _dream master_ he goes into outer and inner abilities comparing this
"being" (whoever that may be?) :oD with the "others".
Now he does not simply just call them others but "wanna-bes". He also admits
that the "wanna-bes" can teach the outer, and than adds that a true master will
teach on the inner also. Now in a closed sentence he says not too many
"wanna-bes" can teach on the inner. These are not exact quotes either but you
are leaving much out of your comments of what he stated. I can do the exact
quotes for you if you wish.
Basically he is keeping himself as the "most" and keeper of the "holy ghost".
And he will always be able to tell the true believer that they are not quite a
master yet, still another, just another baby step.
Interesting circle of beliefs.
And what you write in defending eckankar, purposely or not, portrays you as an
example of a true believer.

[Ram3Ram]

>Questions to help the assessment process
>
>1. Who is the leader?

I, Blah Zey, am the leader of ECKANKAR, and am the MAHANTA, The Living ECK
Master!

> What are his/her background and qualifications?

Was appointed the 975th MAHANTA, The Living ECK Master. (Not by the Black
Magician, Dap ren, but by the Nine Silent Ones!)

> Have you relied solely on trust that all of the information you

> were given is true or have you done independent investigation?

Yes, through the method of Soul Travel, an easy method anyone can learn!

> Do you feel pressure to accept and not question at all?

The Path of ECK is beyond all questions of acceptance or questioning,
questioning acceptance or even accepting questioning, for it is the Path of
Soul.

> Is it possible that there are misrepresentations or falsehoods?

YES!
Every world religion is a distortion of the True Teachings of The ECK. The
Teachings of ECK are found in ECKANKAR, the first and purest Path to God.

> Is there external corroboration for extraordinary claims of
> accomplishment or are they simply his/her say-so?

The fact that the MAHANTA, The Living ECK Master exists is ample corraboration!

> If "miracles" have been performed, can they be replicated under
> open observation or even under scientific conditions?

Yes, certainly! But that would come under the banner of "spiritual
grandstanding," and would be counter to the Path of ECK. Such is the Will of
the SUGMAD!

> Are there other explanations for the "miracles," such as magic
> tricks, hypnosis, etc.?

No! What a funny question! But as the ECK Master Rebezar Tarzs, who was a
real being, was fond of saying: "stupidity is the reigning virtue on this
planet." He said this in either Dialogues with the Master, or the Far Country,
I forget. It matters not, for the Real Teachings of ECK have nothing to do
with books. But such is the Way of The ECK!

> If there is a former leader or member, have you sought him or
> her out to hear for yourself critical information?

Dap ren? As the MAHANTA, The Living ECK Master, I recommend that no one pay
heed to this false "master."

> If not, are you afraid to trust your ability to discern the
> truthfulness of what you learn?

WHAT?!? The Teachings and Wisdom of ECK are received through Soul, a direct
perception of Truth. There is no possiblity of error, as Soul is a funny kind
of particle of the SUGMAD, the Source of Truth. As the MAHANTA, The Living ECK
Master, I'm in total touch with this Source. Pretty neat, eh?

> If you find yourself saying that you don't care if there are
> major deceptions, ask yourself: if you knew this information
> before you became involved, would you have even bothered to
> make a commitment of time and money?

There are no major deceptions, in fact no deceptions at all in ECKANKAR, The
Path of Sound and Light (except perhaps those suffered by inferior ECK chelas
under the influence of Kal Niranjan). But such is the Will of the SUGMAD!

>
>2. Are there exclusive claims made to wisdom, knowledge, love, and
> truth?

> If so, the burden of proof is on the leader to demonstrate his or
> her superiority, not on members to disprove it. A truly developed

> "spiritual" being exudes love, compassion, and humility. Any person

> who claims to be "superior" but does not practice what they preach

> is of questionable character. There is never incongruency between
> words and deeds. A person who uses fear and phobia indoctrination

> to control followers demonstrates insecurity and lack of spiritual
> maturity.
>

I found this to be a funny question!

In ECK,

Blah Zey
The MAHANTA, The Living ECK Master

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Zaz9 13 wrote:
>
> > rsm...@aloha.net wrote:

Rich

> >There you go again! You would think that having _just_ called you on it, you
> >would read a little more carefully. Some people see what they want to, no
> >matter what's on the printed page... or do you purposefully misrepresent what
> >Harold says?
> >
> >He did not use the word "cannot" but said that "not too many" can. That means
> >that he believes that others besides himself _can_ teach inwardly, just the
> >opposite of what you tried to pass off here. Purposefully or not, that's an
> >example of what I see as being a detractor.

ZAZ:

> There you go again! Some people see only what they want to on a printed page.
> Of course it will always aligned with their beliefs.
> Let us take a closer look at what HK says. We will leave out the headline for
> the article for now. But his thing you are passing off him saying that others
> _others_ besides himself _can_ teach inwardly is surrounded by as many
> adjectives and beliefs that you seem to view as invisable. And that you are
> passing off as not quite what is said about others.
> Right after stating that, in eckankar, individuals get a lot of assistance from
> the being called _mahanta, the living eck master_ and that he is a outer and
> inner master who has _the spiritual power_, that he is also the wayshower and
> the _dream master_ he goes into outer and inner abilities comparing this
> "being" (whoever that may be?) :oD with the "others".
> Now he does not simply just call them others but "wanna-bes".

He said Wanna-bes ZAZ! Hmmm, I think Rich left some important words out
of his take on the article. Very selective of him. <g>

HA! Sounds like the smoking gun of the typical eck arrogance to me,
Rich.

ZAZ:

>He also admits
> that the "wanna-bes" can teach the outer, and than adds that a true master will
> teach on the inner also. Now in a closed sentence he says not too many
> "wanna-bes" can teach on the inner. These are not exact quotes either but you
> are leaving much out of your comments of what he stated. I can do the exact
> quotes for you if you wish.

I tell you what...since you two have different views on the same
article, I say type it up and I'll take a look at it and humbly serve as
an objective third party. <ggg> I think I got a certain knack for
reading Harold's writing.

ZAZ:

> Basically he is keeping himself as the "most" and keeper of the "holy ghost".
> And he will always be able to tell the true believer that they are not quite a
> master yet, still another, just another baby step.

He's got to position himself as special, as the ultimate...it's the
eckankar way. I mean who in the hell wants to identify with a mediocre
master. Mediocre just doesn't sell too well. <gg>

Lurk

[David D. Rogers]

On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:41:11 -1000, Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:

: zep...@connectexpress.com wrote:
:
: > Interesting site! Here are couple of questions from his
: > suggestions for evaluating a spiritual group:
:
: OK, I'll give it a quick run through.

[snip!]

There you have it! And don't rely soley on the group for critical
information. <G>

Peace,

<> David

URL me at http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"You can kill a thousand; you can bring an end to life; you cannot kill
an idea."
--Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres on the assassination of
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995)
-----------------
"It bothers me that I was fooled and didn't know it. It bothers me more
that you know you were fooled and don't seem to care."
--Sam Orez on alt.religion.eckankar, 2/12/98

trancenet.org's Newsletter editor-- sign up today! http://trancenet.org

[Jan4litsnd]

RICH said previously:

> >There you go again! You would think that having _just_ called you on it,
you
> >would read a little more carefully. Some people see what they want to, no
> >matter what's on the printed page... or do you purposefully misrepresent
what
> >Harold says?
> >
> >He did not use the word "cannot" but said that "not too many" can. That
> >means
> >that he believes that others besides himself _can_ teach inwardly, just the
> >opposite of what you tried to pass off here. Purposefully or not, that's an
> >example of what I see as being a detractor.

> There you go again! Some people see only what they want to on a printed page.
> Of course it will always aligned with their beliefs.

RICH:

I was not talking about beliefs but the *actual* words that he wrote.

<snip all the BS which Lurk laps up>

Harold wrote:

"Yet a true master will also teach his students inwardly. (Not too many
wanna-bes can do that.)"

Construe that any way you want but it's plain for anyone to see. There
are no hidden meanings or subtle inferences.

OK Lurk, when you read that direct quote, is Harold saying that "the

living eck master can work on the (inner and outer) whereas others

cannot.", as Tuza Traveler insists he is? From these two sentences

above out of the whole Mystic World he said, "the New Mystic World

(March 1998) has more of these[holier than thou attitude] articles"

Admit it TT. You exaggerated. Be honest and apologize and salvage some

respect. I know this is just a fun game for you with your cutesy
sarcasms but making up stuff that is not there only makes you look
foolish. Your point may be well taken, there are statements in the
Eckankar literature that can be interpreted as a 'holier than thou'
attitude but don't grasp at straws that aren't there. There are people
who lurk here that are taking a serious look at the teachings of
Eckankar. If you play the clown with these kinds of obvious
misrepresentation, you will be ignored. Of course Sam and Lurk will be
always be pleased and support you no matter what.<G>

JAN:

Rich, TT Zaz speaks from his 'beliefs', not what was __actually__ written in
the article.

Sending Love to Rich and all,

Jan

[Zaz9 13]

>(Jan4litsnd) wrote:

>JAN:
>
>Rich, TT Zaz speaks from his 'beliefs', not what was __actually__ written in
>the article.
>
>Sending Love to Rich and all,
>
>Jan

KHJan and ObserverRich speak from their 'beliefs' in a like manner. The whole
article was to serve building up the living eck master and puttting "Wanna-be
Prophets" in another place by HK. Now self worth and your feelings of self
worth reflect in anything one writes, says and thinks about others and it
becomes very interesting of how eckists view one who writes of "wanna-be"
others and the "easy life, easy money" with such subtle connative remarks.
i can feel your "eck" love Jan :o) Rich's too
Z

[Zaz9 13]

> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net>

>Zaz9 13 wrote:
>

>> Your assuming "false pretenses"....
>
>I assumed nothing

You assume a great deal even in your subject lines and attacks...er ...defenses
:o)

> _You_ said that even though you "do not believe in

>any masters, and surely not eck masters. I find all religions to be

>distortions"... you used Eckankar membership because it "gets one into
>fancy hotels where the women are always very receptive." Of course none
>of this is true, you were just spewing BS. I don't know why I let
>myself get sucked into these ridiculous dialogs. I guess that it might
>help others see your true colors.

Takes one that is also spewing to know another. My true colors. LOL You cannot
even get my handle right! :oD Nothing I say will stop you from promoting your
beliefs and I am not trying to do this.Merely pointing out the conflicting
beliefs that eckankar promotes as 'truth' in a small way. You are the one who
jumped on a simple comment in your assumptions and which parts are not true?
That no one is receptive in fancy hotels? That I do not believe in "masters"?
That memebership cannot get one in fancy hotels? rofl you really are an amusing
and colorful yourself, Rich. :oD

>
>> ...reflects you very much and your "holy" pretenses. :o)
>
>Holy?<VBG> You are making less and less sense. Been drinkin'?
>

Yes I have had some 7-up Rich. :oD You have to READ and COMPREHEND the whole
thing Rich. :oD

>
>> And if you truely believed that eck was the "holy spirit" or "life force",
>how
>> can anyone attack it? This "flexiable" belief really has me laughing. :oD
>Oh
>> let us not forget the kal and his job. NO kal, no karma, no linear
>lifetimes
>> and there is no need for a master or mahanta.....
>

>You are rambling on with more nonsense here.

If it is nonsense (and contradicting), eckankar promotes it and eckists follow
and believe it. Why so many pages written for "protection" , etc. You are
really amusing. :oD

>> More adjectives....
>
>What? I shouldn't use adjectives? You have a problem with adjectives?
>I thought you said they are training me well?

NO problem,These types of adjectives whihc subtley attack others are a fine art
of the eckankar "secret teachings". :oD Part of being very linear in
objectively viewing beliefs and objectively viewing inner reality. :oD Another
black belt lesson. :o)

>
>> >There you go again! You would think that having _just_ called you on it,
>you
>> >would read a little more carefully. Some people see what they want to, no
>> >matter what's on the printed page... or do you purposefully misrepresent
>what
>> >Harold says?
>> >
>> >He did not use the word "cannot" but said that "not too many" can. That
>> >means
>> >that he believes that others besides himself _can_ teach inwardly, just
>the
>> >opposite of what you tried to pass off here. Purposefully or not, that's
>an
>> >example of what I see as being a detractor.
>
>> There you go again! Some people see only what they want to on a printed
>page.
>> Of course it will always aligned with their beliefs.
>

>I was not talking about beliefs but the *actual* words that he wrote.

Me too.
The actual words wrote are the beliefs. :o)

>
><snip all the BS which Lurk laps up>
>
>Harold wrote:
>
> "Yet a true master will also teach his students inwardly. (Not too many
>wanna-bes can do that.)"
>
>Construe that any way you want but it's plain for anyone to see. There
>are no hidden meanings or subtle inferences.
>

You have left out the promoting of the living eck amster, the wayshower, the
dream master, the mahanta and his 'spiritual power" and ability to work with
the outer and inner. The subtle inference in this article is that the "living
eck master" is beyond these "false guides". Many worlds like "false prophets",
"so-called spiritual guides who are charlatans", false guides", "wanna-bes",
etc etc.
NO hidden meanings or subtle inferences here!
And who gives this "living eck master" his base? "The gullible public, no
other." Amusing article. :oD

>OK Lurk, when you read that direct quote, is Harold saying that "the
>living eck master can work on the (inner and outer) whereas others
>cannot.", as Tuza Traveler insists he is? From these two sentences
>above out of the whole Mystic World he said, "the New Mystic World
>(March 1998) has more of these[holier than thou attitude] articles"
>
>Admit it TT. You exaggerated. Be honest and apologize and salvage some
>respect.

Admit what? And to someone that can not or does not remember my handle or
cannot even speak to me. rofl
Print the whole article and let others decide. I see HK promoting himself while
cutting at others. I know it can be seen also as HK trying to protect the
"gullible" public....but wait,... this Mystic World is for members only. Maybe
he is just protecting his own "gullible" membership....
I still say that it is a promoting of the "holier" than those "wanna-be"
others.

I know this is just a fun game for you with your cutesy
>sarcasms but making up stuff that is not there only makes you look
>foolish

I do not mind looking like you Rich :o). It is very amusing. :o)

> Your point may be well taken, there are statements in the
>Eckankar literature that can be interpreted as a 'holier than thou'
>attitude but don't grasp at straws that aren't there. There are people
>who lurk here that are taking a serious look at the teachings of
>Eckankar. If you play the clown with these kinds of obvious
>misrepresentation, you will be ignored. Of course Sam and Lurk will be
>always be pleased and support you no matter what.<G>

I do not ask for support :o) Merely relating another view from within the
membership ranks. :o) Even if it does not fit the "cutesy" awe of "masters"
view of many eckists. Hmm, maybe I should say the view of many "wanna-be"
'masters'. lol
Maybe I am cliffhanging around until I start my own "path" for the "gullible"
public. ROFL

>Good luck with the girls. Hope you find some love there.

This stating of getting into fancy hotels with many receptive women really
struck some interesting images for you, Rich. :oD

[cinder]

<rama.jpg>

<rama.gif>

<rama.tif>

--

[Jan4litsnd]

>i can feel your "eck" love Jan

JAN:

I don't know what eck love is; just regular love, been learning lots more about
it all the time.

I feel your tuzaz :o) (smile?)

[Zaz9 13]

Jan wrote:
>I feel your tuzaz :o) (smile?)
>
>

;oD (big smile)

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Zaz9 13 wrote:
>
> > Rich <rsm...@aloha.net>

> >
> >Harold wrote:
> >
> > "Yet a true master will also teach his students inwardly. (Not too many
> >wanna-bes can do that.)"
> >

RICH:

> >Construe that any way you want but it's plain for anyone to see. There
> >are no hidden meanings or subtle inferences.
> >

ZAZ:

> You have left out the promoting of the living eck amster, the wayshower, the
> dream master, the mahanta and his 'spiritual power" and ability to work with
> the outer and inner. The subtle inference in this article is that the "living
> eck master" is beyond these "false guides". Many worlds like "false prophets",
> "so-called spiritual guides who are charlatans", false guides", "wanna-bes",
> etc etc.

<snip>

Rich, I think the problem here is one of what CAN or WILL be perceived
by eckists while a member. Believe me, a few years back I would have
been right with you thinking it is absurd how someone could glean a
"holier than thou" attitude from Harold's comments. Why? Because I
believed he WAS special and I WAS special by association and therefore
those comments were in agreement with what I believed. They were sweet
confirming music to my ear.

However, now that I no longer am member of eckankar and have an
outsider-looking-in perspective, I have to agree with ZAZ about Harold's
comments looking like they are promoting the "holier than thou" attitude
and at the same time ascribing some kind of "specialness" to himself
which through relationship allows those who identify with him to feel
special. And the beat goes on.

These sort of messages are laced throughout the texts of eckankar. This
is nothing really new on Harold's part and finding them in Mystic world
is no great shocker, just more of the same old pitch.

As I take my baby steps to becoming more mature, reading words coming
from Harold about false guides, false prophets, charlatans, and
wanna-bes, kind of sounds Mickey Mouse, if you want to know the truth.
Better yet, it almost sounds like he is projecting evil and making
himself out to be the hero. I'll have to ask Doug about that one. <gg>

Nonetheless, somebody needs to teach Harold more appropriate sales
techniques. I mean rule number one in sales is you simply don't knock
your competition. Why? Because it reflects on you. Smart buyers think:
If someone has to extol the virtues of their product by knocking down
the competition, how strong can their product really be.

Anyway Rich, I know it seems like we have wild interpretations of
Harold's writing, but in my mind it is all a matter of the perspective.
Disengage, step outside of the box, and you will see what we see.

<snip>

ZAZ

> Print the whole article and let others decide. I see HK promoting himself while
> cutting at others. I know it can be seen also as HK trying to protect the
> "gullible" public....but wait,... this Mystic World is for members only. Maybe
> he is just protecting his own "gullible" membership....
> I still say that it is a promoting of the "holier" than those "wanna-be"
> others.

Like I said in another post...what's it mean for a spiritual leader to
show one face to the public and quite another in the private newsletters
of discourses?

If someone isn't going to type and post the article, I still like to at
least know the title.

Lurk

P.S.
You know it just came to me....a message... a message for Doug: Doug
your vision of eckankar would work better or be more believable if your
living eck masters weren't constantly contradicting your viewpoint(s).
<ggg>

[Rich]

arel...@mindspring.com wrote:

> Rich, I think the problem here is one of what CAN or WILL be perceived
> by eckists while a member.

I agree, I have seen plenty examples of this but you could leave off the
WILL, for that implies all Eckists.

> Believe me, a few years back I would have

> been right with you thinking it is absurd how someone could glean a
> "holier than thou" attitude from Harold's comments.
<snip>

> However, now that I no longer am member of eckankar and have an

> outsider-looking-in perspective...

I don't think it's absurd but in this case even when I take an outsiders
viewpoint("Disengage, step outside of the box") it still does not make
make what Harold said different. My point was that there are plenty
real example of what Zaz is trying to get across, without manufacturing
them where they are not. I hurts his credibility and yours by agreeing.

> As I take my baby steps to becoming more mature, reading words coming
> from Harold about false guides, false prophets, charlatans, and
> wanna-bes, kind of sounds Mickey Mouse, if you want to know the truth.

So what's your point? Are you saying that there are _no_ false guides
ect.? That they all _can_ work on the inner with their followers? Do
you disagree with what Harold was saying there? Or are you just saying
that if there are such wanna-bes that it is still wrong for Harold to
caution people about these because you and Zaz read into it a "holier
than thou" attitude?

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Rich wrote:
>
>
<snip>

>
> I don't think it's absurd but in this case even when I take an outsiders
> viewpoint("Disengage, step outside of the box") it still does not make
> make what Harold said different. My point was that there are plenty
> real example of what Zaz is trying to get across, without manufacturing
> them where they are not. I hurts his credibility and yours by agreeing.

Well I'm just thrilled to know that you thought I had credibility to
lose. <gg>

>
> > As I take my baby steps to becoming more mature, reading words coming
> > from Harold about false guides, false prophets, charlatans, and
> > wanna-bes, kind of sounds Mickey Mouse, if you want to know the truth.
>
> So what's your point? Are you saying that there are _no_ false guides
> ect.? That they all _can_ work on the inner with their followers? Do
> you disagree with what Harold was saying there? Or are you just saying
> that if there are such wanna-bes that it is still wrong for Harold to
> caution people about these because you and Zaz read into it a "holier
> than thou" attitude?

Rich, you give me one sentence and ask me my take on it. I considered
the sentence, the other words Zaz revealed, and I also factored in
Zaz's assessment, which has been accurate in other posts. And last, of
course, I considered other stuff Harold has said in the past. I then
gave you my opinion.

But hey, why not post the article? Maybe I'll see the information in
context which would force me to come back and say "yep, you're right
Rich, I read too much in to it."

But as you and I know that's not going to happen because you're not
allowed. It's against the guidelines as laid out by the eck
international office....rule number 540,987: Private written
communication between the master and chela are to remain private because
the public just isn't ready to receive the truth Harold reveals. People
in the public, upon hearing these words, would tear their eyes out, and
puncture their ears because the truth Harold reveals would just be too
much for them. Or, something along that line. <gg>

C'mon Rich, be a man...show them at the headquarters that you're a real
cliffhanger, that you live IN the eck organization but not OF it. That
rules are made to be broken. C'mon, Paul would be proud of you. <ggg>

Here's an opportunity to have one of those "meaningful dialogs" you
called for with one of those mean detractors who twists your words. <g>

Lurk

(As backup, could someone please post the article anonymously, I don't
want to have the tag of being unduly bias towards Harold's writing.
<gg>)

[Rich]

arel...@mindspring.com wrote:

> But hey, why not post the article? Maybe I'll see the information in
> context which would force me to come back and say "yep, you're right
> Rich, I read too much in to it."
>
> But as you and I know that's not going to happen because you're not
> allowed. It's against the guidelines as laid out by the eck
> international office....rule number 540,987: Private written
> communication between the master and chela are to remain private because
> the public just isn't ready to receive the truth Harold reveals. People
> in the public, upon hearing these words, would tear their eyes out, and
> puncture their ears because the truth Harold reveals would just be too
> much for them.

Actually the problem is that it wouldn't be _enough_ information for you
to see the point, since you already appear to be almost entirely blinded
and deaf to anything regarding the teachings of Eckankar. Or... maybe
I'm wrong on this. What of the basic teachings of Eckankar _do_ you
perceive to be truth?

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Rich wrote:

Lurk:

> > But hey, why not post the article? Maybe I'll see the information in
> > context which would force me to come back and say "yep, you're right
> > Rich, I read too much in to it."
> >
> > But as you and I know that's not going to happen because you're not
> > allowed. It's against the guidelines as laid out by the eck
> > international office....rule number 540,987: Private written
> > communication between the master and chela are to remain private because
> > the public just isn't ready to receive the truth Harold reveals. People
> > in the public, upon hearing these words, would tear their eyes out, and
> > puncture their ears because the truth Harold reveals would just be too
> > much for them.

Rich:

> Actually the problem is that it wouldn't be _enough_ information for you
> to see the point, since you already appear to be almost entirely blinded
> and deaf to anything regarding the teachings of Eckankar.

LURK:
Wouldn't be enough? Nah, I'm saying one extracted sentence and a few
words may not be enough to appreciate your point of view, let me see the
whole thing so that I might SEE with my blind eyes, and HEAR with my
deaf ears! Afterall, I wouldn't want my opinion to be frivolously
dismissed as taking a line of Harold's out of context. Why not provide
the context of the whole article? Simple enough.

Rich:

> Or... maybe
> I'm wrong on this. What of the basic teachings of Eckankar _do_ you
> perceive to be truth?

LURK:
What...I have to take a short essay test first to qualify to comment on
an entire article of Harold's in the Mystic World?

Lurk

[Zaz9 13]

>arel...@mindspring.com

Lurk, perhaps without accepting some of " the basic teachings of Eckankar" (one
which is always capitalizing eckankar, eck, lem and other registared
trademarks) :o) you can not be expected to understand anything the LEM writes
that a Lemists could clearly interpret in light of thier comprehending "the
basic teachings of Eckankar".
It appears that if one "preceives some of the basic teachings of eckankar" as
"truth", (which all beliefs appear to those that hold them) :o) you may
interpret your beliefs and the experiences that follow them in a "total
awareness" and see that HK could not mean he is "holier than thou", only in an
extremely "higher" state of consciousness. :o)
But than, maybe the chemicals from the stain remover have worn off....... ?
:o)
just some eck humor... :o)