Eckankar 's SCAM
REM460
Nearly ALL 50,000 worldwide members of the religious CULT called
"Eckankar", headquartered in Minneapolis, have been KEPT IN THE DARK
about the MALICIOUS CRIMES that their present leaders committed against
their predecessor. They are EACH being SCAMMED out of HUNDREDS and
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS which they would NOT be paying to this DANGEROUS
CULT if they knew the REAL TRUTH about these MALICIOUS CRIMES.
Eckankar Was HI-JACKED on 8-7-1983
On 9-11-2001, 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners,
turned them into guided missiles, and used them to murder
some 3,000 People.
For most of its history, America has been HIJACKED by
CABALS, SECRET SOCIETIES, SECRET GANGS OF ORGANIZED
CRIMINALS, who have DELIBERATELY led us into SEVERAL MAJOR
WARS and MANY OTHER PROBLEMS.
See the book "RULE BY SECRECY", by Jim Marrs, 2000, and
http://members.aol.com/rem460/ww2cause.txt , and
http://members.aol.com/rem460/terror11.txt .
And on August 7, 1983, Eckankar was HI-JACKED by a GANG
OF CORPORATE CRIMINALS, led by Peter $kel$key, who have
PERVERTED Eckankar into a DANGEROUS CULT, FULL of CENSORSHIP
DICTATORS and BLACK MAGICIANS with a CULT mentality. Many of
Eckankar's most important Teachings, Books, and Guidelines
are now being IGNORED and SUPPRESSED. See
http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
AND /DGTF.html.
The present Eckankar organi$ation, its "RESA" POWER
structure, and its projected public image (FACADE) are all
really like WHITED SEPULCHRES (the term used by Jesus Christ
in Matthew 23:27-28), which LOOK attractive on the outside,
but on the inside are FULL of ALL KINDS of ROTTEN FILTH.
I used to ENJOY monthly trips and visits to the Eckankar
Temple in Chanhassen, MN, (I live only 112 miles east of it,
["EAST OF DANGER"]), but IT TOO is just a WHITED SEPULCHRE.
I have NOT been there since 10-7-2001.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
***--->"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL !"***
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
@aloha.net Rich
A.R.E., but of probably a dozen other news groups on a variety of
topics. Let's have a look why? First is your SHOUTING.
"REM460" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040603035429...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> >
> Nearly ALL 50,000 worldwide members
The 50,000 figure is over twenty years old. The actual membership isn't
known but most likely it's closer to double that.
> of the religious CULT called "Eckankar",
Yes, according to a very broad definition Eckankar is a cult, just like
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, ect. Is Eckankar a dangerous cult? No.
The fact is that Eckankar allows _more_ freedom than most every other
religious organization.
> headquartered in Minneapolis,
Hey, you got something right.<G>
> have been KEPT IN THE DARK
> about the MALICIOUS CRIMES that their present leaders committed
> against their predecessor.
Eckankar has committed no crimes. The fact is, Eckankar teaches living
within the laws of one's country, even if you disagree with those laws.
If Eckankar has committed malicious crimes, why have they never be
prosecuted by local, state, or federal agencies?
As to the previous leader; two years after he has relinquished the
spiritual and business leadership, he tried to abscond with the
membership records and 3 million dollars. Did Eckankar have him
arrested or prosecuted? No. What did he do? He filed frivolous
lawsuits against Eckankar. He lost on all counts.
> They are EACH being SCAMMED out of HUNDREDS and
> THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS which they would NOT be paying to this DANGEROUS
> CULT if they knew the REAL TRUTH about these MALICIOUS CRIMES.
Membership in Eckankar is by donation of $130/yr, which can be waived if
one can't afford it.
> Eckankar Was HI-JACKED on 8-7-1983
>
> On 9-11-2001, 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners,
> turned them into guided missiles, and used them to murder
> some 3,000 People.
>
> For most of its history, America has been HIJACKED by
> CABALS, SECRET SOCIETIES, SECRET GANGS OF ORGANIZED
> CRIMINALS, who have DELIBERATELY led us into SEVERAL MAJOR
> WARS and MANY OTHER PROBLEMS.
> See the book "RULE BY SECRECY", by Jim Marrs, 2000, and
> http://members.aol.com/rem460/ww2cause.txt , and
> http://members.aol.com/rem460/terror11.txt .
This is the kind of stuff that get laughs on other news groups.
> And on August 7, 1983, Eckankar was HI-JACKED by a GANG
> OF CORPORATE CRIMINALS, led by Peter $kel$key, who have
> PERVERTED Eckankar into a DANGEROUS CULT, FULL of CENSORSHIP
> DICTATORS and BLACK MAGICIANS with a CULT mentality.
The words that best describe these are, unfounded hyperbole.
> Many of Eckankar's most important Teachings, Books, and
> Guidelines are now being IGNORED and SUPPRESSED.
See words above about this nonsense.
> See http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
> AND /DGTF.html.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1AC16AD5
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J6BC22AD5
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2FA32C36
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P4CC42AD5
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K19C24AD5
> The present Eckankar organi$ation, its "RESA" POWER
> structure, and its projected public image (FACADE) are all
> really like WHITED SEPULCHRES (the term used by Jesus Christ
> in Matthew 23:27-28), which LOOK attractive on the outside,
> but on the inside are FULL of ALL KINDS of ROTTEN FILTH.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F41678
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AL Radzik
Rich wrote:
> Robert, for many years you have been the laughing stock of not only
> A.R.E., but of probably a dozen other news groups on a variety of
> topics.
Sort of a catharsis for you, I'm sure.
Alf
@aloha.net Rich
"Dennnis" <d-s...@me.net> wrote
> Now let's be fair. At this point everyone knows that there never
> really was anyone named "Rebazar Tarzs".
Dennis, your idea of being fair is projecting your belief as if it
applies to *everyone*?! :-O
> Early Eck literature referred to Kirpal Singh. (I remember seeing this
> in a brochure. Had a copy until we were told to throw them away and
> get the new ones.) Later it was changed to "Rebazar Tarzs". So let's
> drop the nonsense.
Dennis, Dennis... That's the kind of belief that comes from one who only
ascribes to detractor party lines. It's been known and posted for years
that Kirpal's and Rebazar's names were written side by side by Paul in
1964. That was way before this David Lane myth started. Apparently you
haven't read Doug's book. It's all there. You know.. real *facts*.
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
<SNIP>
> All religion demands money.
Eckankar "demands" no money. This nonsense is typical of bizarre
apostate behavior so common here in A.R.E.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F41678
Every Eckist knows this is not true. And any new person can go to
http://www.eckankar.org/Membership/countries.html
and see that
"You may decide to give according to your ability and desire.
If you are unable to donate the suggested amount, you may
request membership by calling or writing Eckankar".
So this is the opposite of what you imagine Dennis. If one can't afford
to pay, they don't have to, and can still be a member.
<SNIP>
> ..getting out of the body is the most difficult thing anyone
> over 5 can do.
I can only guess that you are speaking for your self and again
projecting that on everyone else.
<SNIP the kind of false nonsense that's been debunked years ago>
> Being honest with yourself is the first step. And the hardest. Believe
what YOU
> have experienced <snip>
>
> Follow your own, real inner master, the still quiet voice within,
> always there, always loving.
I have been doing for decades Dennis. You finally got something
right.<G> That's what Eckankar teaches.
<SNIP Dennis telling everyone what is NOT, and NO, NO, NO, NO everyone
doesn't have these needs for spiritual growth that he had.
> You are a complete spiritual being all by yourself. You may even
discover
> the real spiritual travellers.
<snip>
> they do exist if you find the real master within. They will find you.
Right. You slipped again here at the end. Your intent in this diatribe
of
dis-information was certainly to detractor from Eckankar, but agreeing
as you do here with what Eckankar teaches doesn't help your argument.
We've been over all this before. Do you really think that this attack
post accomplishes much?
Skardicus
>Darwin was to later recall that when he "introduced this man to Master
Rebazar Tarzs, [the Torch-Bearer for these teachings] Rebazar refused to let
the man come up to the area beyond the dual worlds. He told me to keep him
down there. I should have remembered that, for the man's experience was
within the dual worlds only."
>Now let's be fair. At this point everyone knows that there never really was
anyone named "Rebazar Tarzs".
***This brings up an interesting "point" - the world of words. Some ECKists
(of the highest order of course) think that the next evolution beyond
"beingness" is "knowingness". And I will attest that Rebazar once existed
in my mythological construct of the world based on ECKANKAR cosmology.
Therefore he did exist for me...for a while.
>Early Eck literature referred to Kirpal Singh. (I remember seeing this in a
brochure. Had a copy until we were told to throw them away and get the new
ones.) Later it was changed to "Rebazar Tarzs". So let's drop the nonsense.
***I read Rich's response to this line - seems he doesn't agree that you
remembered this. Apparently being a detractor requires memory loss
according to Rich.
>Secondly, all religion is man-made, and consequently, a form of cult.
Anytime you call anyone else "Master" you are in a cult. This includes
Christianity. Especially so, in that it's Master is long dead and all that
remains are the priest, who can and will interpret the Master's words
however best it suits their purpo$e.
>All religion demands money. Money creates a business. Therefore, all
religion is a business. The business of ANY business is business; never
believe otherwise. And religion is very big business. So Eckankar is no
worst that any of the others, and better than many.
***I read Rich's response to the above as well - he definitely gave
"evidence" to the contrary of your point. I will build a bridge between the
two points (if I can remember how) or at least try. Perhaps Rich's point
about "demand" is well made. Some poor people do get a free membership - I
will attest to that. Instead of demand - perhaps we could use the word
"require". Rich will show his evidence again - however - ECKANKAR has a
"stand on your own feet" requirement for H.I.s. Not every ECKist is
initiate nuts ("I can't wait to be a 5th wooo woo) but many perceive gaining
initiations as taking real steps toward self and god realization - therefore
the initiation climb is leverage for many if not all. If a 2nd knows that a
5th is required to make his or her own way in this world then they might
emulate that to "get closer to god". And I would say that this is a good
teaching no matter what religion - if it means "depend upon yourself for
your wellbeing". So, though Rich gives evidence, the information he gives
is about an exception, not the "standard" for most ECKists.
If it was - any good detractor would write thousands of subscription
requests on the behalf of homeless people just to be irritating.
And ECKANKAR might not require money from every single ECKist - however
bridging back to Dennis ECKANKAR does require money. It has bills, boards,
employees - it requires money. ECKANKAR has money making strategies and has
had them from early on. The books don't say "Buy and Read and Watch
everything we have now!". But as with anything - if you take it seriously
you will demonstrate a pattern that might seem like you were told the above.
And of course you may buy most and read most and watch most of everything
through time.
I've got a question here for everyone, detractor and ardent ECKist alike. I
read that thing about the Sedona property - that's some painful reading.
That woman financed ECKANKAR at that time. "Oh you want to move to Menlo
Park - no prob...here's a parcel of land you can sell and how much did you
say I should write that check out for?" So my question - does the Helen Frye
story demonstrate clearly enough how ECKANKAR is a business? ECKANKAR put
up 400 K to buy back her property and she doubled that with 800 K. And I'm
not so stupid as to suggest that ECKANKAR still does bad business like that
now - perhaps they've gotten smoother with their operation. Do any of you
think that ECKANKAR might not have made the move to Menlo if it wasn't for
Helen Frye's money?
>Now, I do see that Eckankar (like most cults) can be a danger to certain
people. It is slick and promises wonders beyond imagination. It doesn't
really deliver of course, getting out of the body is the most difficult
thing anyone over 5 can do. So, this leaves the followers to ponder why THEY
failed. (They, never the religion.) This creates guilt and fear, a prime
causation of giving one's will over to another, such as a religion.
Followers form images inside themselves of worlds beyond the physical and
that they alone by virtue of their high degree of spiritually are amongst
the elite of human kind (all religion does to one degree or another.)
In the end, many will wake up to the falseness and leave, others will adapt
to the distal areas, enjoying the friendship of other like-minded souls. A
third group will remain on the peripheral, never fully believing nor
desiring to leave hoping among hope that some of it is true. (There's ALWAYS
some truth to any religion.)
The truly spiritual follow no one, they just go their own way and words and
images and others just get in the way.
***I'm not sure what "truly spiritual" means here. My logic is this - if
this is a spiritual aspect to each human's beingness then we all are "truly
spiritual". If there is not a spiritual aspect then "truly spiritual"
translates to "truly deluded".
>Rebazar Tarzs never existed. Paul created him to bury Kirpal Singh and lead
the following away from the teaching he had discovered so much from and
copied from. So view anyone who refers to RT as either unknowledgeable or a
crafty lad that's using mythology to ensnare others. Christian priests and
ministers of gospels do it all the time.
Darwin never introduced anyone to Rebazar Tarzs as he never existed.
Therefore, Darwin lied. Proving that Eckankar was a cult long before Darwin
left, and that everything that transpired was business. The ousting a lousy
figurehead, who was not bringing in the business, not growing the business
and rapidly lining his own pockets as fast as he could. I remember someone
asking (jokingly) how they could donate a thousand or million dollars to
Eckankar for the building fund (this was at a seminar), and Darwin's
response was that they could give it to him (him personally.) And I though
why would anyone so high even joke about wanting money (if he really was
that high.)
***My take on this 972nd conclusion is different. I think Darwin was good
for "business" and I think his moviestar lifestyle was lavish and his
grandiosity (financially) was out of control. It was too much of the pie he
was eating from. Those that had control of the pie cutter took it out of
his hands once and for all. The reason that most actors have agents is that
agents ensure the performance is well paid for and that the performer gets
many opportunities to perform. The agents leverage is truly economical.
The mind that it takes to perform is a very different mind than the one that
accounts for the coins at the end of the night. The agent aims the
performer at the performance for maximum gain. The performer just waits for
the magical words..."Showtime!"
If anyone doubts ECKANKAR's decision to eliminate Darwin for sound business
reason just read the MC Hammer story.
>A lot can be gained from Darwin's lawsuit transcript. When asked, he
truthfully states that his purpose while he was the leader of Eckankar was
to get people to buy books. (He also admits that he was a second a year
before becoming the 'master' and was not a fifth when initiated; agreeing
with several chelas that knew him personally. Actually, he was really Gail's
lover and Paul's bodyguard.
Eckankar is a cult, but I don't feel it's all that dangerous. You CAN leave
without all the bullshit Paul warned about. It was all just a ploy to induce
apprehension and dread for being lost to the 'order'. But you can leave, and
after a while you will begin to see that Eckankar, or whatever religion you
are trapped in, slowly loses it's grip. And you will begin to feel good
about yourself again.
***I simply disagree with your above statement about it not being dangerous.
I've felt that way for years (your sentiments) and in the last few months as
I've visited different boards - my mind has began to change on that topic.
I've taken the things that I know of - the trauma of ECKists and ex-ECKists
and began to question if at least some of those tragedies were the result of
ECKANKAR the religion. I have no proof. I do have questions.
<SNIP>
>Being honest with yourself is the first step. And the hardest. Believe what
YOU have experienced, not the lies of the business.
***Part of being honest is to be able to discern when you've applied someone
else's label to your experience and when you have truly labeled your
experience for yourself.
Another aspect of being honest is to own and experience your feelings no
matter how painful or hard they might be. It was my experience that some of
the teachings of ECKANKAR were about denying some kinds of feelings.
ECKANKAR refers to some of those feelings as "passions of the mind". I was
once challenge (when I was an ECKist)about being an "angry" person. I KNEW
I wasn't an angry person because anger was a passion of the mind I was
supposed to "rise above". The non-ECKist that stated this about me then
asked "Is Anger not "allowed" in ECKANKAR?" I'll reask the question - Is
anger disallowed via the ECK teachings? Remember the point is to be honest.
<SNIP>
Skardicus
AL Radzik
saying....."DON'T BE".
Alf
Ken
"AL Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> For someone to say "not to be angry" or "Don't be sad" is basically
> saying....."DON'T BE".
Anger and sadness are a natural part of being human, but
these are just emotions not the core of one's being. I've had
more than my share of anger the last few years and overall it's
not beneficial to overcoming the obstacles that I've faced. It's mostly
been a sidetrack. That's my experience FWIW.
@aloha.net Rich
"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote
> ***I read Rich's response to this line - seems he doesn't agree that
you
> remembered this. Apparently being a detractor requires memory loss
> according to Rich.
It must be more than memory loss because neither of you could
acknowledged the fact that I presented in that post.
<SNIP>
> ***I read Rich's response to the above as well - he definitely gave
> "evidence" to the contrary of your point. I will build a bridge
between the
> two points (if I can remember how) or at least try. Perhaps Rich's
point
> about "demand" is well made. Some poor people do get a free
membership - I
> will attest to that. Instead of demand - perhaps we could use the
word
> "require".
I agree that "require" is closer that "demanad". Why not just use what
it really is? -> A suggested donation. There is a difference in the
meaning and practice that is very clear to me.
> How about Rich will show his evidence again - however - ECKANKAR has a
> "stand on your own feet" requirement for H.I.s. Not every ECKist is
> initiate nuts ("I can't wait to be a 5th wooo woo) but many perceive
gaining
> initiations as taking real steps toward self and god realization -
therefore
> the initiation climb is leverage for many if not all. If a 2nd knows
that a
> 5th is required to make his or her own way in this world then they
might
> emulate that to "get closer to god". And I would say that this is a
good
> teaching no matter what religion - if it means "depend upon yourself
for
> your wellbeing". So, though Rich gives evidence, the information he
gives
> is about an exception, not the "standard" for most ECKists.
Right, the standard is that most Eckists take personal responsibility,
and pay for what they get.
> I've got a question here for everyone, detractor and ardent ECKist
alike. I
> read that thing about the Sedona property - that's some painful
reading.
> That woman financed ECKANKAR at that time. "Oh you want to move to
Menlo
> Park - no prob...here's a parcel of land you can sell and how much did
you
> say I should write that check out for?" So my question - does the
Helen Frye
> story demonstrate clearly enough how ECKANKAR is a business? ECKANKAR
put
> up 400 K to buy back her property and she doubled that with 800 K.
And I'm
> not so stupid as to suggest that ECKANKAR still does bad business like
that
> now
You think getting a $1.2M property for $400K is bad business?!<G>
Helen was simply donating the loan.
The painful part of reading that was discovering that it is clear that
Charlie Wallace was Helen's friend that betrayed her and Eckankar. Seem
he destroyed her will in collusion with the relatives who were slated to
get nothing. Charlie is also the source of a few of the most outrageous
and completely unsupported stories about Eckankar that are so popular
with the detractors.
@aloha.net Rich
"Dennnis" <d-s...@me.net> wrote
> There was a nonsence sries of articles written to dispute David Lane's
book
Why didn't you acknowledge the fact I presented?
<SNIP>
> Try to get into a seminar without paying.
It has and can happen. New comers get in free for Saturday sessions.
> Try asking for a book or tape or CD without paying.
They are available from lending libraries at ECK Centers.
> BTW, didn't Paul write somewhere that he was against building temples
and
> the like? Seems like I remember this from somewhere.
To the contrary, Harold was following Paul's vision to establish a 'seat
of power' because of the necessity for the survival of the organization.
<SNIP>
> Well, I still believe that he was nothing more than a jerk and simply
lucky.
> After lane's book came out, Eckankar lost large amounts of followers
in
> short order.
That's not true. It was a small percentage. Most Eckists never even
heard of the book until the Internet became popular.
Michael Wallace
The vast majority of David Lane's "facts" have been proven to be opinions
expanded to appear as fact. Doug Marman's book is quite clear, concise and
to the point, and it simply pulls apart the majority of David's arguments.
Further, when David himself appeared here (And we respect the fact that he
stood his ground, unlike Ford Johnson who hides from scrutiny) it became
more and more evident what was NOT in his book was highly relevant. The
embellishment of opinions, such as the "redaction of Kirpal" was proven to
be completely incorrect.
But hey... We are all alolowed to believe whatever we wish to believe about
anything we choose to believe in or otherwise... So I won't try and alter
your belief <G>
But of course you can have membership if you are broke and can't afford to
pay. of course you can get to a seminar if you are poor that year. Can't say
the hotels offer the same option, of course.
Love
Michael
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:c9ueh...@news1.newsguy.com...
@aloha.net Rich
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's names
> were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and _before_ he
stopped his association with Kirpal?
Ken
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote ...
>
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
>
> > It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's names
> > were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
>
> It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
> character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
>
> How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
> association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and _before_ he
> stopped his association with Kirpal?
He had the whole thing planned out in advance Rich. In fact, he had
it planned out so well that he KNEW we'd be having this discussion
years hence and so made sure that both the names were published
side by side, before he redacted and rewrote everything in a
desperate attempt to fool everyone into believing in Rebazar!
(Yes, it's true! Or not! :-)
@aloha.net Rich
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
He was a pretty smart guy. Could have been an ECK Vidya thing. Yeah,
that must be it.<G>
Astral
> Robert, for many years you have been the laughing stock of not only
> A.R.E., but of probably a dozen other news groups on a variety of
> topics. Let's have a look why?
Yes, let's look. Do you want to get your teeth whitened first?
>First is your SHOUTING.
As opposed to calling our moms.
>
>
> "REM460" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040603035429...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> > >
> > Nearly ALL 50,000 worldwide members
>
> The 50,000 figure is over twenty years old. The actual membership isn't
> known but most likely it's closer to double that.
Let's stop right here. Let's look at the mind of a fundie cultist.
Rich is the guy who recently posted outside data showing a membership
of 40,000. This shows an actual decline in membership. The sad truth
Rich evades is that eckanschmuck keeps its membership numbers secret
to avoid embarassment. It's members have declined because eckankuk is
in decline. the newage is over boys. That's what's "most likely". Stop
ten people, stop 100 people on the street and see how many have even
heard of eckanstoopid.
Skardicus
>
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
>
> > It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's names
> > were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
>
> It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
> character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
>
> How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
> association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and _before_ he
> stopped his association with Kirpal?
It's an interesting question you ask here - Rich. I'll answer in reverse
since that's what the detractor hand book suggests ;). "Why" is answered by
philosophy - meaning anything after "because" answers it -so it doesn't
exactly speak to the mechanics of the event or non-event (Will the real
Rebezar please stand up). How is a no brainer. Rebezar was a street name
one day and an ECK Master the next. The pen is mighter than the sword.
Further - if by "why" you meant "what was his motive given the
circumstances" - many detractors believe that Paul created ECKANKAR to keep
his wife from leaving his broke day dreaming ass. I don't propose to be a
mind reader so I have no "motive theory"
You know - I can't prove Rebezar doesn't exist - but Rebezar is so
unavailable as to lie in the realm of the purely subjective, not unlike a
great deal of religious information (mythology, cosmology, "the word of God,
etc). If Reb does exist - then any detractor's position to the contrary is
irrelevant - if he doesn't then it certainly gives credence that Paul was
making stuff up.
My faulty memory calls up a passage or two that says Reb is about 500 years
old. I don't seem to remember at all who the 970th LEM - was it Reb or were
there some in between (seems like there were some inbetween ones). To the
faithless reader - it would seem like the unbroken line of LEMs is:
Mythology stretching back to before time + 3 Modern Day Living ECK Masters -
1 Fired-Fallen-Excommunicated Mahanta-LEM??=2 identifiable and acceptable
LEMs?
That brings up a question - how does a being achieve Mahanta Consciousness
(Darwin Gross) and then...become invalid? Does that mean some of us have
already been the Mahanta at least once and then we....decided it would be
more fun to worship ego, be stuck in the physical plane....instead of The
Ocean of Love and Mercy?
Since (besides Harold) 8th initiates are the highest intiates in ECKANKAR
how does anyone know that Harold attained the Mahanta Consciousness? I mean
holding the Rod of Power (LEM) that's some pretty major stuff the way it
reads - how would a pre-Masterful soul be able to discern the difference
between the LEM and the Mahanta? Doesn't the Mahanta Consciousness exist
regardless of the LEM? So it would be there even if the LEM hadn't attained
it? Since the last Mahanta-LEM was...invalidated - who is around to
validate the present one? Paul wrote about 971 unbroken line of LEMs - does
Darwin's excommunication mean that the line was finally broken? If it is
broken - who broke it and how?
I would never have considered answering these questions while still in my
ECKANKAR phase. I look foward to your answers.
Skardicus
Skardicus
>
> "Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
>
> > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's
> names
> > > > were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
> > >
> > > It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
> > > character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
> > >
> > > How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
> > > association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and
> _before_ he
> > > stopped his association with Kirpal?
> >
> >
> > He had the whole thing planned out in advance Rich. In fact, he had
> > it planned out so well that he KNEW we'd be having this discussion
> > years hence and so made sure that both the names were published
> > side by side, before he redacted and rewrote everything in a
> > desperate attempt to fool everyone into believing in Rebazar!
> >
> > (Yes, it's true! Or not! :-)
>
> He was a pretty smart guy. Could have been an ECK Vidya thing. Yeah,
> that must be it.<G>
I do ECK Vidyas for gas money at Starbucks (just kidding) - I would agree
that Paul was a smart man. Perhaps lucky as well. I don't think it's easy
to engineer and maintain a religion (or whatever you call it at any given
phase of it's existence.).
Skardicus
@aloha.net Rich
Did you miss the implications of the word *before*?
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:upQxc.3191$wD5...@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Skardicus
the tools to forge into something tangible. I have no idea if that reflects
Paul's timeline or not, but your offering "before" as proof is flimsy. It
doesn't mean you are wrong - it just isn't a very strong demonstration of
verification.
If you could respond to my other questions I'd appreciate it, if not - well
free will and all?
Oh and unlike my fellow detractors ;) I think like so many things, "truth"
is a man made concept. If Paul lied about everything and the result was
that people could really travel to other planes of existence, ascend time
and space, live in an immortal, 360 degree viewpoint and so many other
fabulous promises of ECKANKAR - I'd nod my head and fly around the world in
my astral body or have dates on the Casual plane or visit Yama and tell him
what a funny skit ECKANKAR did of him blah blah blah.
OK now you've inspired a fresh post. Thanks Rich.
Skardicus
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:ca8nt...@news3.newsguy.com...
> You covered a whole bunch of stuff _except_ the crux of my question...
> Did you miss the implications of the word *before*?
>
<SNIP>
cher
smart ass remark by david lane and nothing more? David supposedly saw
the road sign and quipped that this must be the source of Reb. That's
all it took.... and to date no one has been able to find this so called
road!! Maybe david had an out of body experience, hey? Maybe he saw it
on an inner plane somewhere? :-> <tsk>
Promises made? Universities promise higher education, but still grade on
a curve. No one ever promised an A just for showing up! I guess if you
didn't learn how to do out of body or soul travel, then it must be the
fault of the teachings, hey? One of the oddest things about detractors
using pseudonyms, is that the stories they shared when ECKists can't
catch up with them on line as they reflect on what a waste of time
Eckankar was in their lives. How convenient, hey? No lies to catch up
with them! ;-)
Skardicus
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40C88836...@worldnet.att.net...
> Flimsy? You do know of course that the context of a "street name" was a
> smart ass remark by david lane and nothing more? David supposedly saw
> the road sign and quipped that this must be the source of Reb. That's
> all it took.... and to date no one has been able to find this so called
> road!! Maybe david had an out of body experience, hey? Maybe he saw it
> on an inner plane somewhere? :-> <tsk>
>
> Promises made? Universities promise higher education, but still grade on
> a curve. No one ever promised an A just for showing up! I guess if you
> didn't learn how to do out of body or soul travel, then it must be the
> fault of the teachings, hey? One of the oddest things about detractors
> using pseudonyms, is that the stories they shared when ECKists can't
> catch up with them on line as they reflect on what a waste of time
> Eckankar was in their lives. How convenient, hey? No lies to catch up
> with them! ;-)
Does my pseudonym really excite you that much - and though you were
generalizing - I've never delivered a post that suggested I thought ECKANKAR
was a waste of my time. You are projecting. I experience many enduring
resources as a result of my ECKANKAR journey. Even jogging in place can get
you into shape. Sometimes the jogger-in-place wants to see new places
though and proceeds "somewhere else".
With the name of course comes all the stories. There'll be no point in
asking for an ECKist concensus after that. And I must admit I've been
tempted to put it down and open the story vault. We'll see.
Overall I don't have bad memories of ECKANKAR - if I have mustered a
greviance here it is the sum total of what I've become presently through the
shaping of my ECKANKAR training. Of course I don't contribute all my
unresourceful process to ECKANKAR or my experience there but I do begin to
awaken to how that time and that experience shapped some of my processess
into degraded functionality.
You particularly Cher have an interesting supposition (consistently) that I
just never got it. If you had to develop an alternative supposition what
would it be. What's very interesting about all the information that
intersects a.r.e. is that the true believer's sureness of what is "so" and
what is "real".
I asked this question to Rich and he one-lined me with a question - so I'll
ask you.
Before Darwin "passed" on the rod of power, was he a LEM and did he
achieve(attain) the Mahanta Consciousness? Or was that before your time?
If he was - does that mean that all the material that he generated during
his "reign" was from the Mahanta Consciousness and the "word" of the LEM?
Of course the machinations of Super God Realized beings is beyond me - I'm
curious how the God Man fell and that fall retroactively invalidated all his
material. Or was Darwin's reign a lie? Was he a poser that his girlfriend
Gail "crowned" for whatever purpose?
I had only been in ECK a few years when I received Darwin's first "denial" -
what he was denying was beyond me. It was a big WTF kind of thought I had.
In fact, I had just returned from my second initation that night when I saw
his letter on my dresser.
Now - if the fallen God Man's contribution was a lie - does that mean that
all initiations during that time were bunk? If it wasn't a lie but all
contributions were invalidated retroactively - why not all the
transformations and changes of the ECKists who lovingly followed him?
Some Keltic beliefs suggest (mythologically) that the son must kill the
father to inherit the kingdom.
FWIW I'm not a die-hard Darwinite or anything - I just never thought about
any of this while an ECKist and now that I "can" think about it - it all
seems so puzzling. My friends and I all used to say "The 'D' Word" as a way
of honoring the "eliminate-darwin-from-the-vocabulary" order and still
communicate who we meant.
Metaphorically burning people at the stake is probably the sloppiest thing
ECKANKAR does as a religion. I understand in any leadership context
decisiveness is essential. And...self-surgery to eliminate any challenges to
the information is only a short-term solution.
Here's an idea (I bet Peter has juggled it) - Put Darwin back into the
game - let him be the first 9th initiate ever in ECKANKAR (he was 14th so he
would still be less-than)and have some amazing story that ties it all
together. Give him a job, a pension (how old is he now), let him play his
xylophone and watch all those old players come out of hiding. It would be a
killer-boost to attendance. AND he would be the only "other" one qualified
to train Harold's successor.
Just imagine how much harder ECKists would try if they COULD reach
Mastership (9th initations). And Darwin could be the constant reminder that
even a Master can become UnMasterful. He'd be GLAD to chastise any junior
Masters to follow in his marketable footsteps "Serve Faithfully and
Unquestionably the Living ECK Master (or get fired)"
ECKANKAR could build a Wisdom Temple for new Masters ONLY and charge a butt
load of money for the 6 month retreat that is required to truly begin
Mastership while on the earth-plane. Who wouldn't fork out 10K or whatever
for a long retreat after 20 or 30 years of devotion to finally be recognized
as a Master.
Masters could then replace RESAs. Sri Cher overseas this area. ACK -
women...that would have to change again wouldn't it. No more ECK-sexism if
9th initations were available.
If ECKANKAR adapts this idea - I'd like an honorary Master Status for coming
up with it. Ohh Ohhh - And just think if they could tie in income to this
idea - here's my MLM concept taking a true shape. Each Master would receive
a yearly income and a percentage of the annual membership in their region -
Woooo Wooo!
OK - that was fun. More later.
Skardicus
<SNIP>
cher
>
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:40C88836...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Flimsy? You do know of course that the context of a "street name" was a
> > smart ass remark by david lane and nothing more? David supposedly saw
> > the road sign and quipped that this must be the source of Reb. That's
> > all it took.... and to date no one has been able to find this so called
> > road!! Maybe david had an out of body experience, hey? Maybe he saw it
> > on an inner plane somewhere? :-> <tsk>
> >
> > Promises made? Universities promise higher education, but still grade on
> > a curve. No one ever promised an A just for showing up! I guess if you
> > didn't learn how to do out of body or soul travel, then it must be the
> > fault of the teachings, hey? One of the oddest things about detractors
> > using pseudonyms, is that the stories they shared when ECKists can't
> > catch up with them on line as they reflect on what a waste of time
> > Eckankar was in their lives. How convenient, hey? No lies to catch up
> > with them! ;-)
>
> Does my pseudonym really excite you that much - and though you were
> generalizing - I've never delivered a post that suggested I thought ECKANKAR
> was a waste of my time. You are projecting. I experience many enduring
> resources as a result of my ECKANKAR journey. Even jogging in place can get
> you into shape. Sometimes the jogger-in-place wants to see new places
> though and proceeds "somewhere else".
So you stood still then? I guess it takes some people longer than
others. <smile> As to being excited by your pseudonym... nope... just
commenting on how convenient it makes the later stories of "non-event"
for the detractor community. Interesting, hey? So let's see what a
mental screw is about in your universe......
> With the name of course comes all the stories. There'll be no point in
> asking for an ECKist concensus after that. And I must admit I've been
> tempted to put it down and open the story vault. We'll see.
Like they haven't been seen before! LOL... But I'm looking forward to
seeing the morphing process of detractor land take place. <smile>
> Overall I don't have bad memories of ECKANKAR - if I have mustered a
> greviance here it is the sum total of what I've become presently through the
> shaping of my ECKANKAR training. Of course I don't contribute all my
> unresourceful process to ECKANKAR or my experience there but I do begin to
> awaken to how that time and that experience shapped some of my processess
> into degraded functionality.
Oh I just bet you do! And you have all that help in doing it so easily!
LOL...
> You particularly Cher have an interesting supposition (consistently) that I
> just never got it. If you had to develop an alternative supposition what
> would it be. What's very interesting about all the information that
> intersects a.r.e. is that the true believer's sureness of what is "so" and
> what is "real".
Your conclusion, not mine. Are you seeking a fix on my position and just
too cowardly to ask me up front? <smile> Frankly I just summed you up as
testing the water to see if hitting back would make you feel like more
of a man. I figured you'd change your tune to fit the song of your
choice soon enough. It's in the tempo of your writing.
> I asked this question to Rich and he one-lined me with a question - so I'll
> ask you.
>
> Before Darwin "passed" on the rod of power, was he a LEM and did he
> achieve(attain) the Mahanta Consciousness? Or was that before your time?
Before my time. I was told within to wait, and chose to do so. I had my
answer right there. <smile> As to Darwin achieving Mahanta
Consciousness? Nope... not to my knowledge. That was spun by BB.
> If he was - does that mean that all the material that he generated during
> his "reign" was from the Mahanta Consciousness and the "word" of the LEM?
> Of course the machinations of Super God Realized beings is beyond me - I'm
> curious how the God Man fell and that fall retroactively invalidated all his
> material. Or was Darwin's reign a lie? Was he a poser that his girlfriend
> Gail "crowned" for whatever purpose?
You honestly believe a state of consciousness is reached and held as in
carved in stone? Like a title given to say... the Pope? <sigh> No....
it's rewon everyday! Just like all the initiation levels before it, the
Mahanta Consciousness IS, and is not the man. Do you recall something
called the "Razor's Edge"?
From what I've seen... to date, Darwin didn't leave a great deal of
material to be concerned over. I did have a copy of "your right to
know". <grinning> I rest my case. ;-)
The tapes were simply sold out and not reproduced. Understandable given
that Darwin asked for his stuff back, remember? Along with Paul's stuff?
And nearly three million dollars? And membership files? <smile>
>
> I had only been in ECK a few years when I received Darwin's first "denial" -
> what he was denying was beyond me. It was a big WTF kind of thought I had.
> In fact, I had just returned from my second initation that night when I saw
> his letter on my dresser.
>
> Now - if the fallen God Man's contribution was a lie - does that mean that
> all initiations during that time were bunk? If it wasn't a lie but all
> contributions were invalidated retroactively - why not all the
> transformations and changes of the ECKists who lovingly followed him?
Interesting question! I honestly couldn't tell you what the answer might
be for you. For me, it's more to do with the initiation being accepted
on the inner, and not limited to the outer consciousness. I know that my
initiations were most certainly more inner experiences then outer ones.
> Some Keltic beliefs suggest (mythologically) that the son must kill the
> father to inherit the kingdom.
Interesting that they're all dead now, hey? LOL....
> FWIW I'm not a die-hard Darwinite or anything - I just never thought about
> any of this while an ECKist and now that I "can" think about it - it all
> seems so puzzling. My friends and I all used to say "The 'D' Word" as a way
> of honoring the "eliminate-darwin-from-the-vocabulary" order and still
> communicate who we meant.
Well that was weird! Were you afraid of him or something? The people
that I met, particularly the H.I.'s... were incredibly open and honest
about the topic. In fact they told me directly about all the david lane
stuff and provided me with a copy of "path of the masters" to read. Cool
beings. I came to understand that physical limitations are a test of
ones ongoing trials, and that darwin didn't hold up too well under the
stress of pain coupled with medications and alcohol. Oh well... :-)
> Metaphorically burning people at the stake is probably the sloppiest thing
> ECKANKAR does as a religion. I understand in any leadership context
> decisiveness is essential. And...self-surgery to eliminate any challenges to
> the information is only a short-term solution.
Oh boy... let's all martyr darwin!!! Yippie!!! Just what we need to make
us real, a cross in the middle of the room. LOL.... Nope... only in
darwins imagination. Once he was gone he was quickly forgotten. The gist
of the path is after all, spiritual.. not social.
> Here's an idea (I bet Peter has juggled it) - Put Darwin back into the
> game - let him be the first 9th initiate ever in ECKANKAR (he was 14th so he
> would still be less-than)and have some amazing story that ties it all
> together. Give him a job, a pension (how old is he now), let him play his
> xylophone and watch all those old players come out of hiding. It would be a
> killer-boost to attendance. AND he would be the only "other" one qualified
> to train Harold's successor.
Have you been to his site? Darwins? I think you should tell him your
idea! Yeah.. it's a boring summer so far... go tell darwin what you
think should happen. I can't wait to see the fire works!!!! Now don't
forget to come back and tell us what comes of your idea! I can't wait to
hear what darwin has to say on this topic. <chuckle>
> Just imagine how much harder ECKists would try if they COULD reach
> Mastership (9th initations). And Darwin could be the constant reminder that
> even a Master can become UnMasterful. He'd be GLAD to chastise any junior
> Masters to follow in his marketable footsteps "Serve Faithfully and
> Unquestionably the Living ECK Master (or get fired)"
Darwin already is an example of the toppling off of mastership! Yep...
stands as a reminder to all! And we don't need to pay his pension
either. Law of Economy, hey?
> ECKANKAR could build a Wisdom Temple for new Masters ONLY and charge a butt
> load of money for the 6 month retreat that is required to truly begin
> Mastership while on the earth-plane. Who wouldn't fork out 10K or whatever
> for a long retreat after 20 or 30 years of devotion to finally be recognized
> as a Master.
Well that does sound like darwin of old.... quick fix money making
schemes. Wow... those days are long gone! But as I said, go talk it over
with darwin. He seems out of ideas lately. Maybe he's just waiting for
your help? He has a path called Atom, you know. Yep.... started his own
path!
> Masters could then replace RESAs. Sri Cher overseas this area. ACK -
> women...that would have to change again wouldn't it. No more ECK-sexism if
> 9th initations were available.
No problem with being a female ECK Master, dear. Sorry.... :-) Trust
me... I'm not the least bit eager for the adventure either. So if you
need an ambitious woman, you might want to look up some of those former
members who were uber-feminists! Yep... that's the ticket. I'm just glad
to be here now! <smile>
> If ECKANKAR adapts this idea - I'd like an honorary Master Status for coming
> up with it. Ohh Ohhh - And just think if they could tie in income to this
> idea - here's my MLM concept taking a true shape. Each Master would receive
> a yearly income and a percentage of the annual membership in their region -
> Woooo Wooo!
Hey... I bet ford johnson could use your ideas as well as darwin! They
both have money issues. And ford has this spiritual dream of a yacht!
<grin> Gotta keep those boys happy... and I doubt that nathan can bring
them the capital they need with his investment schemes. LOL.....
arelurker
Skardicus,
Let me put it this way: Have you benefited from coming to a.r.e. and
reading the exchanges between ex-ecksits and eckists? Have you found it
helped in your post eckankar days. If so, please don't hesitate to
contribute by letting people in on what you know. You know, the behind
the scene stuff you express could have the same benefits for a newbie or
some other ex-eckists or God forbid, eckists.
You're not in eckankar anymore, it is okay to express negative opinions
about eckankar. Let me assure, contrary to what Harold says, you will
not suffer hardship, unless you consider Cher's responses hardship.
Maybe that is what Harold meant.
Lurk
Ken
"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote ...
>
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
> news:ca2qh...@news2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> >
> > > It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's names
> > > were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
> >
> > It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
> > character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
> >
> > How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
> > association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and _before_ he
> > stopped his association with Kirpal?
>
> It's an interesting question you ask here - Rich. I'll answer in reverse
> since that's what the detractor hand book suggests ;). "Why" is answered by
> philosophy - meaning anything after "because" answers it -so it doesn't
> exactly speak to the mechanics of the event or non-event (Will the real
> Rebezar please stand up). How is a no brainer. Rebezar was a street name
> one day and an ECK Master the next. The pen is mighter than the sword.
If you don't mind, I'd like to throw out a few comments.
Your observation about the pen is certainly right on the money here
since so many take Lane's assertion about that mythical sign at face
value. Based on how David's track record has played out here the
last couple of years I'd advise extreme caution in that regard.
> Further - if by "why" you meant "what was his motive given the
> circumstances" - many detractors believe that Paul created ECKANKAR to keep
> his wife from leaving his broke day dreaming ass. I don't propose to be a
> mind reader so I have no "motive theory"
>
> You know - I can't prove Rebezar doesn't exist - but Rebezar is so
> unavailable as to lie in the realm of the purely subjective, not unlike a
> great deal of religious information (mythology, cosmology, "the word of God,
> etc). If Reb does exist - then any detractor's position to the contrary is
> irrelevant - if he doesn't then it certainly gives credence that Paul was
> making stuff up.
Given Rebazar's history of public appearances, this standoff doesn't
seem likely to change any time soon. But fwiw, are you sure that this
is a 'bad' thing? If a spiritual teaching is supposedly all about
mastership and proving / rediscovering reality and truth for oneself,
what good would objective and verifiable proof of the existence of a
500 year old Master do for those aspiring to mastership? Seems to
me such proof would just clutter things up with more 'followers' rather
than assist the 'finders'.
>
> My faulty memory calls up a passage or two that says Reb is about 500 years
> old. I don't seem to remember at all who the 970th LEM - was it Reb or were
> there some in between (seems like there were some inbetween ones). To the
> faithless reader - it would seem like the unbroken line of LEMs is:
> Mythology stretching back to before time + 3 Modern Day Living ECK Masters -
> 1 Fired-Fallen-Excommunicated Mahanta-LEM??=2 identifiable and acceptable
> LEMs?
>
> That brings up a question - how does a being achieve Mahanta Consciousness
> (Darwin Gross) and then...become invalid? Does that mean some of us have
> already been the Mahanta at least once and then we....decided it would be
> more fun to worship ego, be stuck in the physical plane....instead of The
> Ocean of Love and Mercy?
Well why not? Maybe more than once for some of us, eh?
>
> Since (besides Harold) 8th initiates are the highest intiates in ECKANKAR
> how does anyone know that Harold attained the Mahanta Consciousness?
Not to sound condescending but this question seems to be a really big
deal for some folks. It's never made much of an impact on me as
Harold's specific level of spiritual consciousness isn't an issue. I KNOW
that he is my spiritual teacher / guide right now. That's all that matters
at this time.
> I mean
> holding the Rod of Power (LEM) that's some pretty major stuff the way it
> reads - how would a pre-Masterful soul be able to discern the difference
> between the LEM and the Mahanta?
I can't see how any even remotely self-honest individual could claim
any non-subjective perceptions on this issue. And again, what's the
big deal?
> Doesn't the Mahanta Consciousness exist
> regardless of the LEM? So it would be there even if the LEM hadn't attained
> it? Since the last Mahanta-LEM was...invalidated - who is around to
> validate the present one?
LOL. External validation of subjective reality is important for you?
> Paul wrote about 971 unbroken line of LEMs - does
> Darwin's excommunication mean that the line was finally broken? If it is
> broken - who broke it and how?
>
> I would never have considered answering these questions while still in my
> ECKANKAR phase. I look foward to your answers.
It's interesting to me that you seem to be portraying yourself as having
lived an unexamined life while an Eckist. While I have known some
like that, they seem to be by far in the minority. That's my subjective
experience of course <g>.
@aloha.net Rich
You covered a whole bunch of stuff _except_ the crux of my question...
Did you miss the implications of the word *before*?
"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote
> > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> >
> > > It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's
names
> > > were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
> >
> > It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
> > character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
> >
> > How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
> > association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and
_before_ he
> > stopped his association with Kirpal?
Skardicus responded:
> No Rich, I didn't miss it. I've had ideas for decades that I didn't
have
> the tools to forge into something tangible. I have no idea if that
reflects
> Paul's timeline or not, but your offering "before" as proof is flimsy.
It
> doesn't mean you are wrong - it just isn't a very strong demonstration
of
> verification.
Nope, you're still missing it. I wasn't offering any proof. I'll just
stick with this one issue.
I'll try again, and be as clear as I can.
My point is that David Lane and a host of detractors that hold to his
myth believe that Paul made up a fictitious character named Rebazar
Tarzs to cover up his association with Kirpal. They run out a bunch of
scenarios that _they_ offer as *proof* of this. While some may be
unaware, others refuse to see the fact that this line of speculation is
simply not possible. Why? Because the timing is retroactive, and thus
false.
Paul's first mentions of Rebazar, that we know of, occurred two years
_prior_ to a time when he could have had a(supposed) need or reason to
cover up his relations with Kirpal. Further, at that time, he mentions
Kirpal and Rebazar in the same sentence. The only way their argument
could hold up is if Rebazar was not mentioned until _after_ Eckankar was
started, and then still, not until a year later when he broke off with
Kirpal. It was only then that he stopped mentioning him and removed
Kirpal's name for his writings.
Do you acknowledge this one point now?
I have found that focusing on one issue at a time is the only way to
come close to clearing misconceptions like this one up. It's why I
chose the Subject for this thread. Sure there are all kinds of
sidebars. But what happens most always is that they get used to spin
away from the simple core issue.
Most often when is gets down to facing the bare facts like this,
detractors brush it off with 'yeah buts' or 'it doesn't matter' because
of all the other issues. They have a whole body of issues which are in
essence only opinions, that they use to support their overall belief,
that allows them to dismiss self evident facts like this example. But
when the facts of most of those issues are examined with reason and
honesty, one at a time, the results are the same.
I've been out of town for a while and have a lot of catching up to do,
but if you have one issue you'd like to discuss, I'd be glad to.
rem6...@aol.com
Nearly ALL 50,000 worldwide members of the religious CULT called
"Eckankar", headquartered in Minneapolis, have been KEPT IN THE DARK
CULT if they knew the REAL TRUTH about these MALICIOUS CRIMES.
Eckankar Was HI-JACKED on 8-7-1983
On 9-11-2001, 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners,
turned them into guided missiles, and used them to murder
some 3,000 People.
For most of its history, America has been HIJACKED by
CABALS, SECRET SOCIETIES, SECRET GANGS OF ORGANIZED
CRIMINALS, who have DELIBERATELY led us into SEVERAL MAJOR
WARS and MANY OTHER PROBLEMS.
See the book "RULE BY SECRECY", by Jim Marrs, 2000, and
http://members.aol.com/rem460/ww2cause.txt , and
http://members.aol.com/rem460/terror11.txt .
And on August 7, 1983, Eckankar was HI-JACKED by a GANG
OF CORPORATE CRIMINALS, led by Peter $kel$key, who have
PERVERTED Eckankar into a DANGEROUS CULT, FULL of CENSORSHIP
DICTATORS and BLACK MAGICIANS with a CULT mentality. Many of
Eckankar's most important Teachings, Books, and Guidelines
are now being IGNORED and SUPPRESSED. See
http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
AND /DGTF.html.
The present Eckankar organi$ation, its "RESA" POWER
structure, and its projected public image (FACADE) are all
really like WHITED SEPULCHRES (the term used by Jesus Christ
in Matthew 23:27-28), which LOOK attractive on the outside,
but on the inside are FULL of ALL KINDS of ROTTEN FILTH.
I used to ENJOY monthly trips and visits to the Eckankar
Temple in Chanhassen, MN, (I live only 112 miles east of it,
["EAST OF DANGER"]), but IT TOO is just a WHITED SEPULCHRE.
I have NOT been there since 10-7-2001.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
***--->"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL !"***
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
Cardinal Chunder
> Nearly ALL 50,000 worldwide members of the religious CULT called
> "Eckankar", headquartered in Minneapolis, have been KEPT IN THE DARK
> about the MALICIOUS CRIMES that their present leaders committed against
> their predecessor. They are EACH being SCAMMED out of HUNDREDS and
> THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS which they would NOT be paying to this DANGEROUS
> CULT if they knew the REAL TRUTH about these MALICIOUS CRIMES.
Whereas these members could have your insanity for free!
Onno Westerman
<rem6...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:1793bc39.04061...@posting.google.com...
official commision. with stories about tapes of alleged hijackers we we saw
and heard yesterday.... wich is possible fake or from another hijack.. ..
Skardicus
I've reinstalled XP a few times since you posted this - pardon the delay
(plus I'm still a newsgroup doofus). Let's get to it.
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:camov...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Previously I wrote:
>
> You covered a whole bunch of stuff _except_ the crux of my question...
> Did you miss the implications of the word *before*?
>
I didn't miss the implications. Your point of logic is well taken, let's
move on.
>
>
> "Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote
>
>
> > > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > It's been known and posted for years that Kirpal's and Rebazar's
> names
> > > > were written side by side by Paul in 1964.
I don't know - I have no material to demonstrate this. I was born in 1964.
Perhaps you could direct me to some unquestionable source about this "it's
been known" aspect of your position.
> > >
> > > It's telling how not one proponent of the "Rebazar is a fictitious
> > > character" theory has ever had an answer for this fact.
Perhaps so. For my personal experience, Rebezar has only existed in my
world as part of the ECKANKAR tales and mythology.
> > > How and why would Paul have 'made up' Rebazar Tarzs to cover up his
> > > association with Kirpal, _before_ Eckankar even existed, and
> _before_ he
> > > stopped his association with Kirpal?
I don't know "why" Paul did what he did. Just to make sure I've wieghed in
properly on this topic - you are saying that Rebezar and Kirpal were part of
Paul's dialogue and whatever (in a way that can be proven) before he
invented ECKANKAR?
>
> Skardicus responded:
>
> > No Rich, I didn't miss it. I've had ideas for decades that I didn't
> have
> > the tools to forge into something tangible. I have no idea if that
> reflects
> > Paul's timeline or not, but your offering "before" as proof is flimsy.
> It
> > doesn't mean you are wrong - it just isn't a very strong demonstration
> of
> > verification.
>
> Nope, you're still missing it. I wasn't offering any proof. I'll just
> stick with this one issue.
>
> I'll try again, and be as clear as I can.
>
> My point is that David Lane and a host of detractors that hold to his
> myth believe that Paul made up a fictitious character named Rebazar
> Tarzs to cover up his association with Kirpal.
OK well, I'm not one of "those" detractors. I'm willing to believe he made
it up for other non-related reasons.
> They run out a bunch of scenarios that _they_ offer as *proof* of this.
While some may be
> unaware, others refuse to see the fact that this line of speculation is
> simply not possible. Why? Because the timing is retroactive, and thus
> false.
I can appreciate your logic in regards to someone applying something
retroactively and considering it suspect. That is certainly the core of
spin doctoring.
However - just because a construct is applied retroactively doesn't make it
false, it just makes it retroactive. Asking another "do I get it"
question - you are saying that Kirpal and Rebezar were reflected in Paul's
expression some verifiable fashion before ECKANKAR and that detractors claim
that Rebezar was an invented Master that absorbed Kirpal - kind of a Kirpal
erasure? I don't know the details of the debate so I won't join at that
level. I can ask questions though. If Paul decided (like Harold did with
Darwin) that Kirpal was no longer worthy mention for his growing religion,
is it "possible" he could have absorbed some of the stories or ideas
initially attributed to Kirpal into Rebezar? Were some of the Kirpal
messages and information worthy of the path, though not the man, x-master
whatever?>
> Paul's first mentions of Rebazar, that we know of, occurred two years
> _prior_ to a time when he could have had a(supposed) need or reason to
> cover up his relations with Kirpal. Further, at that time, he mentions
> Kirpal and Rebazar in the same sentence. The only way their argument
> could hold up is if Rebazar was not mentioned until _after_ Eckankar was
> started, and then still, not until a year later when he broke off with
> Kirpal.
I see the power of your arguement. So, there story couldn't hold up if he
decided to pour the contents of the Kirpal character into the Rebezar cup
later?
>It was only then that he stopped mentioning him and removed Kirpal's name
for his writings.
>
> Do you acknowledge this one point now?
Sure I do. You have a relatively sound arguement that some of the timing of
the detractors' stance is questionable. Does this absolutely rule out that
Rebezar is a fiction?
>
> I have found that focusing on one issue at a time is the only way to
> come close to clearing misconceptions like this one up. It's why I
> chose the Subject for this thread. Sure there are all kinds of
> sidebars. But what happens most always is that they get used to spin
> away from the simple core issue.
As such spining is one of my pet peeves, I can appreciate your focus.
>
> Most often when is gets down to facing the bare facts like this,
> detractors brush it off with 'yeah buts' or 'it doesn't matter' because
> of all the other issues.
I suspect detractors, like ECKists have weak points or challengable areas of
their belief systems. Challengable meaning that there is some fluffy
thinking or erroneous constructs in the big picture that might debunk the
big picture if that area were to crumble.
> They have a whole body of issues which are in
> essence only opinions, that they use to support their overall belief,
> that allows them to dismiss self evident facts like this example.
Now you seem to be breaking your own rule. Sidebars, focusing on one topic.
Back to your original topic. You contest that the detractors stance that
Rebezar was a fiction to absorb Kirpal is crap because of timing. Perhaps
you are correct. Is there a relationship between Kirpal and Rebezar? Are
there other arguements that aren't as impeachable that Rebezar absorbed
Kirpal? Just because your or they (the "detractors") have plenty of facts
doesn't mean you are accurate (mathwise) or "right". Any bridges built on
assumption are best guesses.
It's interesting that you would engage me in this topic - it has little
bearing on me in terms of "why" I left ECKANKAR. Other detractors may need
it to first prove to themselves that ECKANKAR is InventAKAR, but that is so
exhausting (for the most part). I acknowledge the work of those who were
willing to get exhausted and don't get exhausted by exuming the evidence to
demonstrate their construct.
I think one of the challenges that detractors may have in "proving" stuff is
that ECKANKAR is very mythical. The people of ECKANKAR aren't, but the
cosmology of it is. When an ECKist speaks of Rebezar Tarz talking to the
dogs in the back yard while the ECK family had breakfast - that's a very
mythical story. Of course it brings the character to life and gives him a
"presence" in that family's life. That family has no need to disprove
Rebezar.
The detractor on the other hand wouldn't believe Rebezar if they met him.
In both instances, belief=reality define's the eckist and not-eckist alike.
The difference between the two is that the ECK family isn't asking any
critical questions ie. "How do we know this isn't a Deva from Hinduism...or
a Brujo from Castenada's spiritual construct...or..." They "know" it's
Rebezar because that is what the mythology of ECKANKAR has guided them to
believe.
The detractor asks question (not necessarily about Brujos and what not)that
when some of the answers are mythical - allows them to conclude there really
is no solid proof answer.
>But when the facts of most of those issues are examined with reason and
> honesty, one at a time, the results are the same.
Of course the above thought means "Rich is Right". Rebezar is part of the
mythological aspect of ECKANKAR. The people that we know of Paul, Darwin
and Harold derive their lineage from these myths. Kirpal was a real person?
You say he broke away from Kirpal. But at one time in ECKANKAR he mentioned
Kirpal?
Kirpal initiated Paul? It gets confusing. My ECKANKAR training led me to
believe that Rebezar initiated Paul.
OK it's Father's day - bye for now.
<SNIP>
Skardicus
JerryC
Not to get involved with this thread but it occurs to me that groups like
fords and others have made the claim that it is possible to believe that you
are having an experience with Paul T or others only to later on find out
that it wasn't Paul t at all. In fact some rationalize that it was a
manifestation of one own inner self speaking through the vision. It might be
possible that Paul T had experiences with Kirpal S and later found out that
it was not Kirpal at all but was the so called Mahanta of the time AKA
Rebezar T. Paul T has said somewhere in his writings that the mahanta will
use every possible opening in the ethers to reach individuals on their
journeys. In the eckankar dictionary Jesus is defined as the mahanta
consciousness as it appeared to the followers of Christianity. I believe
there are a few others like Krishna who are defined similarly. Paul also
stated somewhere that his vision of eckankar was that each of us were to
stay in our own religions, churches and street corners to spread the
teachings there. The teachings were not to join eckankar, but have to do
with the survival of soul throughout eternity. The existence of 'A' mahanta
is that it is only a vehicle for the teachings and not the teachings itself.
JerryC
"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:U6iBc.4949$1L2...@fe1.texas.rr.com...
@aloha.net Rich
"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote
> Dear Rich,
>
> I've reinstalled XP a few times since you posted this - pardon the
> delay (plus I'm still a newsgroup doofus). Let's get to it.
Ok, good. I thought you had just blown it off.
It's my mistake for assuming that people have read Doug's E-book
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm which has been around
for about four years and thus my "it's been known and posted for years"
statement. Most all the facts, information and explanations about the
myths that David Lane started, and that are still touted today, are
covered there.
In this case, see chapter's 5 and 11 where Doug cites a Jan 1964 issue
of Orion Magazine where Sudar and Kirpal names are mentioned together, a
November 1964 issue of The Psychic Observer where Paul talks about
Rebazar and Kirpal Singh as his teachers, and an early 1966 article
showing Sudar Singh, Kirpal Singh and Rebazar Tarzs together. Other
chapters also have explanations about the Sudar confusion. You might
want to check out the whole book. It would save you and us a bit of
time from going over it.
> I don't know "why" Paul did what he did. Just to make sure I've
wieghed in
> properly on this topic - you are saying that Rebezar and Kirpal were
part of
> Paul's dialogue and whatever (in a way that can be proven) before he
> invented ECKANKAR?
yes, see above.
<snip>
> I can ask questions though. If Paul decided (like Harold did with
> Darwin) that Kirpal was no longer worthy mention for his growing
religion,
> is it "possible" he could have absorbed some of the stories or ideas
> initially attributed to Kirpal into Rebezar? Were some of the Kirpal
> messages and information worthy of the path, though not the man,
x-master
> whatever?
See Doug's book which covers this in detail that I don't have time for
repeating... but yes is the answer.
<Snip>
> Does this absolutely rule out that Rebezar is a fiction?
No but that's a different issue and as I said before, I wasn't offering
this topic as any proof of that one way or the other.
<snip>
> OK it's Father's day - bye for now.
Happy Father's day! Talked to my son earlier.
@aloha.net Rich
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"JerryC" <Jer...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:46adnWTGhcm...@adelphia.com...
arelurker
JerryC wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Not to get involved with this thread but it occurs to me that groups like
> fords and others have made the claim that it is possible to believe that you
> are having an experience with Paul T or others only to later on find out
> that it wasn't Paul t at all. In fact some rationalize that it was a
> manifestation of one own inner self speaking through the vision. It might be
> possible that Paul T had experiences with Kirpal S and later found out that
> it was not Kirpal at all but was the so called Mahanta of the time AKA
> Rebezar T.
What a strange comparison you make here, Jerry.
Ford people are making the point that you can imagine a pile of dog shit
will help you and if you believe it enough, that dog shit will appear in
your dreams and cause all kinds of things to happen. Obviously it is not
the dog shit doing anything, but the person's own resources.
That is totally different than you proposing that Paul realized it was
not Kirpal but Reb who he was having experiences. To make you comparison
accurate, that is like someone who believes in dog shit finally found
out that it was not dog shit at all he was experience but cat shit.
Lurk
Michael Wallace
Spirit... Ergo: any spiritual experience is symbolic of a deeper
significance. If we see a Master, it is because this is what our vision
allows. If we don't, same rule applies.
Neither is wrong nor right, but spiritual truth is not about right or wrong,
but more a state of realization combined with motivation. Spiritual truth
energizes, it energizes with resonance, and sustains with the growth of a
greater reality. the image or experience of a Master is not for "their"
sake, but for ours.
I find people tend to invert this in their heliocentric view of the personal
universe, which is another terms for Ego, btw <G>
Love
michael
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:cb6dn...@news4.newsguy.com...