The Lies and Deception of Eckankar
Oogie
went head to head reading from various religious writings from varied
areas of the world. It was amazing to see the common threads that
emerged from different cultures who at the time had little or no
communication with each other. The similarities were astounding.
Thematically, all these "threads" seemed to have come from a higher
conciousness from which we are all part and parcel.
"What is important said a white-bearded Hindu pilgrim as the train
pulled into Benares is not the object worshipped but the depth and
sincerity of the worship"
Primitive Mythology" Joseph Campbell
If Twitchell had developed his spiritual attainment by tapping into that
higher state and pulling down from it the tenets of Eckankar, I would
give him full credit for being a realized soul.
Unfortunately, he, like LRH, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith and
other "recent" spiritual revisionists were motivated by the power and
greed of capitalizing on pre-existing paths. One may argue that
Christianity and Judaism is also rife with similarities of Mitharism and
other pagan religions thus making it seem like a similar act of
religious theft but none like Twitchell actually formulated an entire
religion in such a short time and simultaneously appointing himself as
the head representative of God on Earth. A diehard cultist may also
argue that Paul was a superman and yanked his sources from the Akashic
readings. All very lame excuses for a man whose voracious appetite was
appeased by the wholesale theft and distribution of the intrinsic works
of 20th century writers, especially Julian Johnson to get his own name
in the spotlight like other scam artists of his era.
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/jpjohnson.html
His short bio in this URL shows similarities of Twitchell's life, the
least of which is that they were both Kentuckians.
All this recent rhetoric about plagiarism and theft is simply a
nitpicking contest. Eckists are trying to pull Paul away from his
obvious robbery of Johnson's works but it is as plain as day that he
received his inspiration not from a higher spiritual state but from
other authors (like Johnson) that seemed to align with his mental processes.
As sure as the sun comes up every day, you can actually see for yourself
the clear and concise imagery between Twitch's written works and
Johnson's works.
Not only that, to add insult to injury, Twitchell changed key names in
his books to avoid and mask the true origins of the pilfered passages.
It is so entirely blatant that any clear thinking individual can see the
motivational factors and the errors in Twitchell's ways.
It is worthy for those considering Eckankar as a path to reconsider and
to read the following side by side comparisons of the two as well as the
works of others to study and relaize finally the painstaking debunking
of Eckankar years ago.
Check it out and remember that Twitch was the founder of Eckankar and
its parade of funny sounding Masters never ONCE appearing in ANY written
books or oral traditions on religion before 1965.
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/eckankarsurvivors/data.html
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
Oogie
It may behoove current Eckists to reread these pages too. Perhaps a
spark of truth may "jump out" at them and let them reconsider the waste
of time they've spent on this charlatan.
cher
Oogie wrote:
> In one of Joe Campbell's series "Masks Of The Gods", he and Bill Moyers
> went head to head reading from various religious writings from varied
> areas of the world. It was amazing to see the common threads that
> emerged from different cultures who at the time had little or no
> communication with each other. The similarities were astounding.
> Thematically, all these "threads" seemed to have come from a higher
> conciousness from which we are all part and parcel.
>
> "What is important said a white-bearded Hindu pilgrim as the train
> pulled into Benares is not the object worshipped but the depth and
> sincerity of the worship"
> Primitive Mythology" Joseph Campbell
>
> If Twitchell had developed his spiritual attainment by tapping into that
> higher state and pulling down from it the tenets of Eckankar, I would
> give him full credit for being a realized soul.
How did you come up with the leap from what Campbell said in this quote
to what you said about Paul and Eckankar? These aren't even the same
subject much less a coherent sentence or thought on your part, alfie.
No wonder you're on most peoples block sender list. <sigh>
> Unfortunately, he, like LRH, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith and
> other "recent" spiritual revisionists were motivated by the power and
> greed of capitalizing on pre-existing paths. One may argue that
> Christianity and Judaism is also rife with similarities of Mitharism and
> other pagan religions thus making it seem like a similar act of
> religious theft but none like Twitchell actually formulated an entire
> religion in such a short time and simultaneously appointing himself as
> the head representative of God on Earth. A diehard cultist may also
> argue that Paul was a superman and yanked his sources from the Akashic
> readings. All very lame excuses for a man whose voracious appetite was
> appeased by the wholesale theft and distribution of the intrinsic works
> of 20th century writers, especially Julian Johnson to get his own name
> in the spotlight like other scam artists of his era.
Johnson is the only case that one could make for this being an issue.
Your historical account of religious figures above does show your lack
of interest and understanding about the topic as whole, though. It's
nothing but a stage to launch into a detractor rant about Paul
Twitchell and Eckankar, unfortunately. <sigh> You pick up bits and
pieces from others messages, but apparently never move beyond your
hatred to actually do any real investigation work. Oh well....
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/jpjohnson.html
>
>
> His short bio in this URL shows similarities of Twitchell's life, the
> least of which is that they were both Kentuckians.
And similarities mean what? I guess from your perspective, all people
born in Kentucky are attempting to steal JP Johnson's thunder? <smile>
> All this recent rhetoric about plagiarism and theft is simply a
> nitpicking contest. Eckists are trying to pull Paul away from his
> obvious robbery of Johnson's works but it is as plain as day that he
> received his inspiration not from a higher spiritual state but from
> other authors (like Johnson) that seemed to align with his mental processes.
> As sure as the sun comes up every day, you can actually see for yourself
> the clear and concise imagery between Twitch's written works and
> Johnson's works.
No one is suggesting that there isn't a strong similarity between The
Far Country and Path of the Masters, alfie. That's not the issue here.
The issue is making claims of evidence that isn't supported or verified
and claiming it's truth. That's what the issue is. There's no
nitpicking contest when you have self appointed subject matter experts
like kent livingston pretending to be a authority on this subject and
then in the very next post mistaking copyright law with trademark
protections. That's just plain ignorance. You have no idea what Paul
alligned his mental processes with, all you can do is guess and
speculate just like your diehard detractor friends on this newsgroup
and your leader David Lane.
> Not only that, to add insult to injury, Twitchell changed key names in
> his books to avoid and mask the true origins of the pilfered passages.
> It is so entirely blatant that any clear thinking individual can see the
> motivational factors and the errors in Twitchell's ways.
And which books would these be then alfie? Can you give us examples
then? We've long since seen that the orginal claim in this instance
made by David Lane was a flat out lie and has been disproven. So let's
see the actual passages you refer to here if we're to be invited to
discuss motivations, okay? Maybe it will clear up your motivation at
least.
> It is worthy for those considering Eckankar as a path to reconsider and
> to read the following side by side comparisons of the two as well as the
> works of others to study and relaize finally the painstaking debunking
> of Eckankar years ago.
Again, the side by side comparisons of Eckankar and David Lane's
beloved path have long since been debunked. And it turns out the
process revealed the mistakes in your thinking and David Lane's
writings.
> Check it out and remember that Twitch was the founder of Eckankar and
> its parade of funny sounding Masters never ONCE appearing in ANY written
> books or oral traditions on religion before 1965.
And your certain of this alfie? Because you do seem to want it both
ways, that Paul borrowed liberally from other paths, and that nothing
he wrote was ever seen before and therefore can't be considered as
valid. <shaking her head>
Standard detrator freesites. Yeah... they've been published here for
over ten years, and still there's no corrections in those sites to all
the numerous mistakes that have been found over these years! <sigh>
> Oogie
>
> It may behoove current Eckists to reread these pages too. Perhaps a
> spark of truth may "jump out" at them and let them reconsider the waste
> of time they've spent on this charlatan.
LOL.... it might behoove alfie to take a long hard look at why he
continues to promote sites that have been debunked by many many posters
on this very newsgroup over the years. Perhaps the final answer is the
quote he started with here... it's not what you believe, but how
faithful to what you believe that marks the follower? Nothing so ardent
as a fanatical apostate! <wink>
tianyue
Oogie wrote:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/jpjohnson.html
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/eckankarsurvivors/data.html
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
Oogie
Tianyue wrote:
This is great, Oogie. It is ridiculously apparent that real debate is
futile on a.r.e., since there is so much reliance on circular logic and
tail-chasing arguments. Answer one absurd assertion, and up spring five
more. Answer those five and they revert back to the first assertions
that were previously debunked. Answer those again and they recycle some
others. And around and around it goes. What makes this appear effective
for them is it literally doesn't matter to these guys if there is no
basis to their assertions, or even if they just make things up out of
whole cloth, because they don't care so long as they appear to have a
rebuttal. I think some of them are not entirely conscious of this
behavior, due to being so completely under the influence of the
religion. They may even believe their own nonsense much of the time.
I've found that when you scratch beneath the surface of their various
statements, links, articles, etc., there is usually surprisingly flawed
interpretations and reasoning in almost every instance if one astutely
looks at the details. Yet to the casual observers immersed in eckankar,
it may be enough to satisfy them for a while that there are at least
some answers to the controversies, even if the answers are completely
flawed. They just want an answer that seems to settle the issue in
eckankar's favor, and wouldn't care to look at the underlyimg details
to determine if the answers are accurate or even applicable.
So posting some good links to the internet sites that give details
about Twitchell's lies and deceptions may be the best response. I
surmise that new members who join despite the information available
online represent persons with an even more gullible temperament than
those who joined in the past, which means that eckankar will soon be
stuck with a foolish clientele with, in some cases, very dim
intellects. But the bright ones will pass on eckankar. Notice how many
have already left who were once regulars on A.R.E.
Tianyue
Rich
"cher" <Gruen...@gmail.com> wrote
> How did you come up with the leap from what Campbell said in this quote
> to what you said about Paul and Eckankar?
As if "The Tiger's Fang", "Stranger by the River", ect are not the
experiences of a realized Soul? Perhaps it takes one to know one?
<SNIP>
> The issue is making claims of evidence that isn't supported or verified
> and claiming it's truth. That's what the issue is.
Always has been as long as I have been coming here. It's presents blocks
out any clarity of what Eckists actually do, feel, experience or believe.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tianyue
Oogie wrote:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/jpjohnson.html
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/eckankarsurvivors/data.html
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
Oogie
*******Tianyue wrote:
*******This is great, Oogie. It is ridiculously apparent that real
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
knee-jerks her "...circular logic and tail-chasing arguments. Answer
one absurd assertion, and up spring five more. Answer those five and
they revert back to the first assertions that were previously debunked.
Answer those again and they recycle some others. And around and around
it goes. What makes this appear effective
for them is it literally doesn't matter to these guys if there is no
basis to their assertions, or even if they just make things up out of
whole cloth, because they don't care so long as they appear to have a
rebuttal. I think some of them are not entirely conscious of this
behavior, due to being so completely under the influence of the
religion. They may even believe their own nonsense much of the time."
Thanks, Mr. T. <G>
As the only one still posting here who had a personal relationship with
Mr. Twitchell, I can add that the value of 40 years of 20-20 hindsight
has finally put his con-game into perspective. He was an extraordinary
charlatan with extraordinary timing. Probably in the mid to late 60's
he couldn't believe his good luck. He not only got his very own
"religion" off the ground, he had the cute little wife and the fawning
devotion of countless others! Alas, as in all stories of greed and
deception, he was his own worst enemy and left the scene in a less than
stellar moment. People like him can never stand success. They have to
fuck it up somehow.
Now eekeekar has reached a slowly crumbling plateau wherein the
dim-witted like Rich and Cher have taken over and the likes of Mr.
Peabody rule from behind the curtain.
Endlessly fascinating really, our ability to delude ourselves.
signon77
While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
pudding is in the eating.
Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
mind.
This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
most important aspect of the 3 for me.
Over and over and over again I have I had personal proof of the reality
of the ECK, Sugmad and the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. And in the
main this has come from the faithful practice of the Spiritual
Exercises of ECK. This is of great importance.
May the blessings be.
Robert E Ilechuku
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
> Hi,
>
> While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
> really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating.
>
> Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
> mind.
>
> This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
> of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
> knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
> experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
> most important aspect of the 3 for me.
Cough.
Here we go again...
Right, that you've "seen" the image of the Mayhantay and you've had
"inner" experiences is not surprising in the least.
Wowee! You had experiences alright, but this
fantasy they had an independent nature has not only been debunked by
science but by all advanced spiritual teachings throughout history.
Time for the Tibetan Book of the Dead quote:
"The Bible of the Christians, like the Koran of the Moslems, never
seems to consider that the spiritual experiences in the form of
hallucinatory visions by prophet or devotee, reported therein, may, in
the last analysis, not be real. But the Bardo Thodol is so sweeping in
its assertions that it leaves its reader with the clear-cut impression
that every vision, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION WHATSOEVER (emphasis mine), in
which spiritual beings, gods or demons, or paradises or places of
torment and purgation play a part, in a Bardo or any Bardo-like dream
or ecstasy, is purely illusionary, being based upon sangsaric
(transitory and conditioned) phenomena.
"The whole aim of the Bardo Thodol teaching, as otherwise stated
elsewhere, is to cause the Dreamer to awaken into Reality, freed from
all the obstructions of karmic or sangsaric illusions, in a
supramundane or Nirvanic state, beyond all phenomenal paradises,
heavens, hells, purgatories, or worlds of embodiment."
(The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Oxford University Press, 1978, p. 35.)
Like I asked Doug and he never answered..."Oh, Doug. Why do you place
so much stock in phenomena? Rebazar (cough), being Tibetan (cough)
would be much more aligned with the teachings of The Tibetan Book of
the Dead than eckankar's phantasamorgic panoply of woo-woo and ya-ya
light & sound, boogy men in the bunk bed, bell and whistle phenomenon,
yes?"
Any sincere seeker of Truth would do well to ponder this information
deeply. Of course, if you are only interested in attending the next HI
meeting, none of this matters.
cher
DarwinT...@yahoo.com wrote:
> signon77 wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
> > really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
> > pudding is in the eating.
> >
> > Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
> > mind.
> >
> > This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
> > of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
> > knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
> > experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
> > most important aspect of the 3 for me.
>
> Cough.
You should get that cough looked at, gary! It could be serious!!
<smile>
> Here we go again...
>
>
>
> Right, that you've "seen" the image of the Mayhantay and you've had
> "inner" experiences is not surprising in the least.
Ah, let's start with the tactic of being "dismissive". That sure makes
you feel important, doesn't it? Nothing like intolerance to give the
illusion of importance. <smile>
> Wowee! You had experiences alright, but this
> fantasy they had an independent nature has not only been debunked by
> science but by all advanced spiritual teachings throughout history.
LOL... By all? Isn't that a rather broad sweeping generalization to be
making? I mean, there do seem to be people out here who honestly
believe that Mary saw Jesus after he supposedly died on the cross! It
appears you forgot about that group of people. So maybe your statements
are more for your benefit, instead of being fact or truth? Let's just
imagine that perhaps your other sources might need to be investigated
as well? Seems you left out a good deal of the world population in your
broad stroke of personal religious conviction, here. I know for a fact
that there are a good many scientists in this world who do not hold
their creative imagination in contempt, because they continue to make
advances! <winking>
> Time for the Tibetan Book of the Dead quote:
>
> "The Bible of the Christians, like the Koran of the Moslems, never
> seems to consider that the spiritual experiences in the form of
> hallucinatory visions by prophet or devotee, reported therein, may, in
> the last analysis, not be real. But the Bardo Thodol is so sweeping in
> its assertions that it leaves its reader with the clear-cut impression
> that every vision, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION WHATSOEVER (emphasis mine), in
>
> which spiritual beings, gods or demons, or paradises or places of
> torment and purgation play a part, in a Bardo or any Bardo-like dream
> or ecstasy, is purely illusionary, being based upon sangsaric
> (transitory and conditioned) phenomena.
>
> "The whole aim of the Bardo Thodol teaching, as otherwise stated
> elsewhere, is to cause the Dreamer to awaken into Reality, freed from
> all the obstructions of karmic or sangsaric illusions, in a
> supramundane or Nirvanic state, beyond all phenomenal paradises,
> heavens, hells, purgatories, or worlds of embodiment."
And you see what in this quote, gary? I read what you offered here, and
I can't disagree with what it says, in fact I can point to this same
understanding shared in the writings of Eckankar! I'd point to your
stories of how influencial you tell us you were back in the days of
early Eckankar as an example of what this quote is addressing! <smile>
>
> (The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Oxford University Press, 1978, p. 35.)
>
>
> Like I asked Doug and he never answered..."Oh, Doug. Why do you place
> so much stock in phenomena? Rebazar (cough), being Tibetan (cough)
> would be much more aligned with the teachings of The Tibetan Book of
> the Dead than eckankar's phantasamorgic panoply of woo-woo and ya-ya
> light & sound, boogy men in the bunk bed, bell and whistle phenomenon,
> yes?"
Interesting. That cough is sounding serious. So you apparently took
this quote you shared as a blanket condemnation of all experiences,
rather than the next step in the process? I see this quote as a measure
of spiritual maturity, learning to move beyond our internal influences
to the true spiritual nature. What you seem to have taken from this is
proof that all experiences are false, period. Is that a fair assessment
of your beliefs in this situation? I guess that's when you stopped the
process of learning then? You didn't need to learn about your own
nature and overcome it? <shaking her head>
Ridicule is not a higher state of awareness, it's a tactic of influence
alone. Something we've all learned to master over the years. It's a
tool of the lowest common denominator, gary. <smiling>
>
> Any sincere seeker of Truth would do well to ponder this information
> deeply. Of course, if you are only interested in attending the next HI
> meeting, none of this matters.
Ah, let's all pretend that someone like you would have a clue about
what "sincere seeker of truth" might be looking for! <smile> ......
Just stick to your AA meetings and see if you can first conquer your
own demons for a change! I realize you need to minimize your failures
by projecting them onto others, but just this once, imagine that you
could find the answer to your problem in this very material you quoted
but failed to comprehend! It's a start, at least. <smile>
Oogie
> Hi,
>
> While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
> really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating.
While I respect the rights of people to follow Eckankar, your point is
well taken, however, I, as a short lived Eckist, found that the writings
from which the foundation of Eckankar was built upon had several
problems, plagiarism not being the worst. I believe that whatever you
can find in Eckankar, you can find on your own accord.
Dreams and Soul Travel are often linked together in the path of ECK as
a means of separating the soul from the body and Twitchell set up a
construct and hierarchy of imaginary masters so his followers could
ascribe their experiential value to something that only exists as proof
"inside the box".
>
> Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
> mind.
As I understand it, Eckankar was an oral tradition brought to the pen of
Twitchell. He wrote his fables with the explicit intent of separating
people from religions they had left to join him in the touching of the
hem of God. Experience is fine, but it is not proof. Anyone could have
done it. Paul was crafty enough to create something out of thin air that
still exists in a diluted form today. It purports you can experience God
ONLY through the ECK. Eckankar regards other religions as feeble and
needy and pities anyone who follow another path. This is called elitism
and they really have no business putting themselves at the top of the
ladder of God Conciousness.
>
> This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
> of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
> knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
> experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
> most important aspect of the 3 for me.
So save yourself the wear and tear of paying for initiations under the
scutiny of RESAs an local ECK bigwigs and do it yourself!
The Light and Sound of God does not belong to Eckankar.
>
> Over and over and over again I have I had personal proof of the reality
> of the ECK, Sugmad and the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. And in the
> main this has come from the faithful practice of the Spiritual
> Exercises of ECK. This is of great importance.
Well, good for you, but remember you are still a living breathing human
with discernment and owe yourself the journey of looking at a religion
that has very suspicious beginnings and is rife with scandal. You are
also under the spiritual tutelage of a "master" who has been known to do
odd things in life that are contrary to mastership of that proportion.
I don't believe jumping off bridges, being afraid of EMF and stripping
at airports is the stuff true masters are made from.
As far as I'm concerned, Klemp won the spiritual lottery; a prize that
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker could only dream of.
Oogie
> signon77 wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
>>really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
>>pudding is in the eating.
>>
>>Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
>>mind.
>>
>>This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
>>of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
>>knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
>>experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
>>most important aspect of the 3 for me.
>
>
> Cough.
>
> Here we go again...
It's all that circular thinking that brings every Eckist back to
experience. For them, experience is the airtight scapegoat that keeps
them glued to the path of deceit. Thye don't understand that every
religion in the world has the ability bring you to indescribeable
heights of spitritual awakenings.
Oogie
> DarwinT...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>signon77 wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
>>>really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
>>>pudding is in the eating.
>>>
>>>Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
>>>mind.
>>>
>>>This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
>>>of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
>>>knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
>>>experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
>>>most important aspect of the 3 for me.
>>
>>Cough.
>
>
> You should get that cough looked at, gary! It could be serious!!
> <smile>
Oh this is Gary? Hey Gary, how the heck are you? Hope you and yours are
well.
tianyue
signon77 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I respect the rights of people to attack ECKANKAR, the point I
> really need to make is that, for the average ECKist, the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating.
Some of those who actually made the pudding have been proven to have
lied about the ingredients they put in the pudding. The power that
Suggestion has over the human mind makes Suggestion one of the most
mighty Gods in existence.
>
> Those who follow ECKANKAR do so from the vantage point of Soul, not the
> mind.
>
Those who leave Eckankar do the same. As soul, knew it was a false
religion based on false claims.
> This morning I relaxed and placed my attention at length on the image
> of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. Why did I do this? Because I
> knew from past experience that this practice, amongst others leads to
> experiences with the Light, with the Sound and with Soul Travel, the
> most important aspect of the 3 for me.
>
This morning, people from a multitude of other religions did esentially
the same thing. They all claim to be following the highest paths.
> Over and over and over again I have I had personal proof of the reality
> of the ECK, Sugmad and the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. And in the
> main this has come from the faithful practice of the Spiritual
> Exercises of ECK. This is of great importance.
>
> May the blessings be.
>
Tell me, do you approve of the vicious attacks that eckists indulge in
on this forum? Do those atttacks reflect the light and sound?
While you're at it, do you believe, as Klemp believes, that those who
leave your religion are suffering from illness?
What do you think about plagiarism? Do you also believe it is
completely ethical to plagiarize?
What about Rebazar spouting the words of Julian Johnson in the far
country? It seems some eckists claim abilities that are far more
developed than PT's, since even he couldn't really communicate with
Rebazar, and had to resort to plagiarism to give Rebazar a script.
Just a few questions from a guy who spent 28 years as an eckist.
Tianyue
signon77
All I care about is continued contact with the Light and Sound of God,
Soul Travel and learning to be as good a channel for the ECK as I can
be. If I have these why should anything else matter? And that's the
true essence of ECKANKAR.
Robert E Ilechuku
Rich
There are a few diehard apostate naysayer detractors
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F41678
here who will never stand for this kind if straighforward personal
experience. They've spent years here polishing their responses with, at
best, half truths. It's become their reality and they are welcome to it.
My experience has been that trying to to dialog with them is a waste of
time. I finally put some of them on my Block Sender list. If you're going
to hang around here you might find that helps to clean up the signal to
noise ratio. IMO they are on a different wave length that has no
receptors for contact with the Light and Sound of God, Soul Travel or
being a channel for Spirit.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"signon77" <sign...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151048779.1...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
signon77
That's advice I'm going to have to follow the way things are going.
After reading several of Doug Marman's posts I thought it might be a
good idea to join the forum. But the overwhelming negativity is
certainly making me have second thoughts. Quite a lot of the
correspondents here have nothing to contribute apart from vitriol and
diatribe. Quite what their angle is isn't very clear.
Yours is a very good idea indeed.
Thanks,
Robert
tianyue
signon77 wrote:
> Rich,
>
> That's advice I'm going to have to follow the way things are going.
> After reading several of Doug Marman's posts I thought it might be a
> good idea to join the forum. But the overwhelming negativity is
> certainly making me have second thoughts. Quite a lot of the
> correspondents here have nothing to contribute apart from vitriol and
> diatribe. Quite what their angle is isn't very clear.
>
I'd say your descriptions are accurate of the posting styles that
abound here, if you meant your comments to apply to the entire overall
tone. I wonder though, if you were describing all the posts, including
those of eckists such as Rich and Cher, or if you are indulging in the
usual bias and only describing those posts of non-members?
Care to answer? For example, how would you characterize Cher's style?
Read for awhile, and get back with me.
Tianyue
tianyue
signon77 wrote:
> Hi Tianyue,
>
> All I care about is continued contact with the Light and Sound of God,
> Soul Travel and learning to be as good a channel for the ECK as I can
> be. If I have these why should anything else matter? And that's the
> true essence of ECKANKAR.
>
> Robert E Ilechuku
I have no problem with your choices. I am here to provide information
and a different perspective which is not encountered from the usual
eckankar leadership. I was a sixth initiate in eckankar, and I feel
there is a degree of responsibility for former members such as myself
to balance what I see as misinformation about the nature of eckankar. I
have withdrawn from this forum on many occasions, only to return and
find appallingly misleading posts about former members and about
eckankar that are constantly paraded around here, which compells me to
reply. Light and sound and opening oneself to the creative life force
is all fine and wonderful, but unfortunately, that is not all there is
to the nature of eckankar. If it were, no one would bother to take the
slander that occurs here as the price to pay for making a post.
Tianyue
Rich
"signon77" <sign...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rich,
>
> That's advice I'm going to have to follow the way things are going.
> After reading several of Doug Marman's posts I thought it might be a
> good idea to join the forum.
Doug's great. Check out his book:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
It covers and debunks most everything the apostates keep arguing here.
> But the overwhelming negativity is
> certainly making me have second thoughts.
That barrage is why very few Eckists stay here for long. Very little
discussion on spiritual issues get far because of it. If that's what
you'd like, there are other discussion forums on the net for that. If you
want your reality challenged, try to engage them.
> Quite a lot of the
> correspondents here have nothing to contribute apart from vitriol and
> diatribe. Quite what their angle is isn't very clear.
It varies. The apostate link I provides is only one possibility. I suspect
that most were that way before they joined and couldn't get past it.
Several of the ones who have honed superficially truthful stories brag
about being sixth initiates. Check out info on the 6th in the SKS bk 2 for
the possibilities of why they ended there.
That said, I have learned a great deal from their valid perspectives and
from them describing the mistakes they made which lead to their leaving
Eckankar. And, this path is simply not for everyone, so they did the right
thing for their own spiritual growth. Their dedication to attempt to drag
everyone off the path with them is another story...
> Yours is a very good idea indeed.
I've found that helps minimize what otherwise can turn into a very thick
skin and jaded attitude from dealing with them that I have suffered from.
Keep your heart open, and the detractors mental machinations evokes
acceptance and compassion for the state of consciousness they display
here.
signon77
These are very good points you're making!!
It is in fact possible to learn from the detractors of ECKANKAR -
especially how not to do things.3 days ago I read an 'open letter' of
resignation from ECKANKAR to Sri Harold by a former ECKist. He/she
began the letter by saying something like : "I know I haven't done the
Spiritual Exercises of ECK very often or written many initiate reports
but.. ."
For me that said it all.Not doing the basics will get the chela nowhere
in a hurry irrespective of initiation level.It's just as Harold once
observed: "Grow or go".
An ECKist on one of these forums, (it may have been you), pointed out
that every chela in ECK owes it to him/herself to prove the reality or
otherwise of the ECK Masters to him/herself. Indeed, when I first came
to ECKANKAR, while an undergraduate in Nigeria, I had a lot of problems
accepting the validity of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. That all
changed one night after I sang HU and asked if Sri Harold was really
the Mahanta. The vivid experience that came afterwards was vital in
providing the foundation for further progress on the path.
And your observations about the 6th Circle are indeed true. A High
Initiate in London, England once remarked to me that if an ECKist is
going to leave ECKANKAR it's more likely to be in the Fourth or Sixth
Circles. Of the 4 High Initiates that I know have left ECKANKAR in the
last 4 years here in England, 3 were in Sixth Circle to my knowledge.
I'll have to check out chapter 12 of the SKS Bk 2. It's something that
my brother,also an ECKist, and I chat about from time to time.
Thanks,
Robert
signon77
The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
sustained them for 20+ years. They never seem to share what halcyon
heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
commend it.
Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
Indeed the same applies to any religion.
Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
interested in building than destroying.
Robert E Ilechuku
Oogie
> Rich,
>
> The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
> energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
> sustained them for 20+ years.
Likewise for the energy spent in defending Eckankar.
They never seem to share what halcyon
> heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
> can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
> commend it.
They realized it was all their doing and not the work of Eckankar.
>
> Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
> used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
> joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
> Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
> Indeed the same applies to any religion.
And of course, Eckankar is the highest form of spiritual conciousness,
right?<GG>
>
> Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
> interested in building than destroying.
On a.r.e. they build grudges and destroy the character of nayasayers.'
Klemp is a hypocrite. The eck.org preaches tolerance for other
religions. I do believe they owe other religions an apology for
tolerating THEM.
tianyue
> Rich,
>
> These are very good points you're making!!
>
> It is in fact possible to learn from the detractors of ECKANKAR -
> especially how not to do things.3 days ago I read an 'open letter' of
> resignation from ECKANKAR to Sri Harold by a former ECKist. He/she
> began the letter by saying something like : "I know I haven't done the
> Spiritual Exercises of ECK very often or written many initiate reports
> but.. ."
> For me that said it all.Not doing the basics will get the chela nowhere
> in a hurry irrespective of initiation level.It's just as Harold once
> observed: "Grow or go".
I noticed the same thing about eckists who remain. One of the most
promiment eckists I knew who was in a high position in eckankar didn't
do his own exercises much, and yet he was in a position to recommend
initiations. So this argument that those who leave are somehow deeply
flawed people is another one of the entrapments so carefully planted
into the eckankar social consciousness. And here you are demonstrating
this for us. Take note, readers. If you leave eckankar, you're
certainly someone who isn't spiritual. Even if you did all the
exercises and disciplines very well, you're lying, as far as these
folks are concerned. You see, they know better than you about
everything you do. God's on their side. They just make this stuff up to
suit themselves. No real evidence is needed to back up their
statements.
This is spiritual arrogance.
>
> An ECKist on one of these forums, (it may have been you), pointed out
> that every chela in ECK owes it to him/herself to prove the reality or
> otherwise of the ECK Masters to him/herself.. Indeed, when I first came
> to ECKANKAR, while an undergraduate in Nigeria, I had a lot of problems
> accepting the validity of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. That all
> changed one night after I sang HU and asked if Sri Harold was really
> the Mahanta. The vivid experience that came afterwards was vital in
> providing the foundation for further progress on the path.
>
Many of those who have left have had much of the same sort of
experiences. Simply having an experience doesn't prove something is
true. If this were enough, then every Christian who claims God told him
to kill abortionists would be correct. As it happens, people have been
seeing visions from the beginning of human existance. It doesn't mean
those visions are not self produced, or misinterpreted. Many have
commented before on the extraordinary capacity of the human brain to
create astounding experiences.
Furthermore, people in other traditions see Jesus, or Buddha, or
Krishna. People tend to see the gods of their own faith.
I'm not saying there are no true spiritual experiences. Only that
people often will take the first image that enters their minds as a
true spiritual experience. Sometimes separating true experience from
just another self-produced experience is difficult, especially for
those who've been taught that anything they see inwardly, especially if
it makes their religion look good, is reality.
> And your observations about the 6th Circle are indeed true. A High
> Initiate in London, England once remarked to me that if an ECKist is
> going to leave ECKANKAR it's more likely to be in the Fourth or Sixth
> Circles. Of the 4 High Initiates that I know have left ECKANKAR in the
> last 4 years here in England, 3 were in Sixth Circle to my knowledge.
> I'll have to check out chapter 12 of the SKS Bk 2. It's something that
> my brother,also an ECKist, and I chat about from time to time.
>
I didn't read Rich's comments about sixth initiates, but I've seen
people leave from every circle of initiation, from the first up to the
eighth. I have observed that the longer people are in eckankar, the
more they begin to see through the BS. As they get up into the higher
initiations, they begin to realize that they have been in long enough
to take a look around and make some decisions. They realize that
they've seen through the lies, and they wake up to the sham. So they
leave. Leaving isn't always easy, so they tend to put it off until
they're very sure. Many of these people who have left were very
committed to eckankar and the exercises. They simply woke up, looked
around, saw the nonsense and left.
So, essentially, you're stating that all those who leave your religion
are spiritually flawed and therefore their comments about eckankar are
not to be trusted. Yet it has been observed by some experts that it is
precisley those who leave a group who know the most about the group,
and their observations are often very accurate.
I'd say that the concept that all who leave your religion have failed
and are flawed is a very dark and ominous teaching. It is essentially
an us-against-them philosophy. Eckists are good, former eckists are
bad. How enlightened, and how entrapping.
And how cultic.
Tianyue
tianyue
> Hi Robert,
>
> There are a few diehard apostate naysayer detractors
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F41678
> here who will never stand for this kind if straighforward personal
> experience. They've spent years here polishing their responses with, at
> best, half truths. It's become their reality and they are welcome to it.
> My experience has been that trying to to dialog with them is a waste of
> time. I finally put some of them on my Block Sender list. If you're going
> to hang around here you might find that helps to clean up the signal to
> noise ratio. IMO they are on a different wave length that has no
> receptors for contact with the Light and Sound of God, Soul Travel or
> being a channel for Spirit.
>
Here we go again. Rich has been putting this link on for years.
Numerous writers have debunked this anti-apostate hate rhetoric. There
are experts who consider the testimonies of former members to be very
clear and valid.
Here's a link
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E2216135D
tianyue
tianyue
> Rich,
>
> The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
> energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
> sustained them for 20+ years. They never seem to share what halcyon
> heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
> can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
> commend it.
>
Twitchell himself wrote, "It is good to be born in a church, but it is
bad to die in one." In other words, even he advocated that there are
times when one outgrows one's current fetters. People stay for most of
their lives in Christianity or Buddism as well. It doesn't prove these
are religions that lead to enlightenment at all. In fact, when one
looks at the amount of rhetoric in eckankar about what awful fates
befall those who leave, it is no wonder people stay members as long as
they do. The entrapping and threatening language holds them prisoner.
Now, here you are voicing that same rhetoric, which demonstrates that I
am correct about the entrapments. Your own words are the evidence.
After you've been here awhile posting on a.r.e., you will probably
learn to keep the unattractive rhetoric you've written to a minimum, as
Rich and the others try to do.
> Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
> used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
> joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
> Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
> Indeed the same applies to any religion.
>
> Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
> interested in building than destroying.
>
Sometimes one must remove the old foundation before rebuilding, lest
the same error be made again and again. Many former members of various
religions take the time to voice to others who may need their wisdom
and experience to assist them in understanding the psychological hold
the religion has on them. It could even be considered an act of service
and giving that people take the time to voice their thoughts. The
things being said by former members have great value, and are not
permitted by those who control such groups to be expressed within the
group. So it is outside the group that these voices are heard.
So, once again, we see another attempt to silence those voices. When
they can't be silenced, they are ridiculed and slandered. When that
doesn't work, they fall back on the usual lies.
tianyue.
Ken
Actually Kent, you are saying the very thing you accuse Eckists
of saying. That if I remain in Eckankar I am cultic (bad) and
that I am either entrapped in my religion, blind to the
"nonsense", or perhaps, that I am lying. You are the one who
his setting up an us-against-them philosophy. If you believe
that Eckists do these things and that these are bad things, why
do you do them?
--
Ken
tianyue
Ah....the old 'you're doing the same thing' defense.
There is a big difference between claiming those who leave one's
religion are ill, or flawed, or defective, or unspiritual (as klemp and
so many others have said, and as demonstrated here in this very thread
lately), and the counter-statement by the former members that such an
attitude is wrong. What a 'catch 22' you have devised. First, accuse
former members of being flawed for leaving in the first place. Next,
when the former members reply that this is a cultic, polarizing
attitude, then accuse them of having an 'us against them' position for
opposing the nonsense. Bravo. Machiavelian twistedness never gets any
better.
Tianyue
>
> --
> Ken
Ken
Look, saying that people who disagree with you are "failed and
are flawed" is either okay, or it's not okay. You've been
saying that very thing about Eckists for years. For example,
you just said that the people who leave Eckankar have "seen
through the lies, and they wake up to the sham", and that they
"saw the nonsense and left". To me that means that people who
haven't quit Eckankar obviously aren't seeing things clearly,
or that they are lying. Either way, from your perspective they
have obviously failed.
You have a good point in criticizing an "us-against-them
philosophy". But when you repeatedly do the very same thing it
undermines your position.
If it's okay for you to say these things about people you
disagree with, then to criticize others for saying similar
things is hypocritical.
--
Ken
tianyue
Ahhh. So, people who leave eckankar are flawed... because they call
eckists flawed... for calling people who leave eckankar flawed. It goes
in a circle.
This is an example of the logical fallacy used in debate known as
"circular argument." Eckankar literature and followers first claim
those who leave their religion are spiritually ill and flawed. Then
when someone critisizes eckankar for making such entrapping statements,
they are, in turn, again accused of being flawed, this time for calling
the eckists flawed for calling people who leave their religion flawed.
This is a PERFECT example of circular argument.
Thanks, Ken. This should be saved for the archives. Hey, are you sure
you want to be the relief pitcher for Rich? You're even more prone to
logical fallacies than he is, and he's the reigning
champion.
Tianyue
>
> --
> Ken
Rich
"signon77" <sign...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rich,
>
> The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
> energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
> sustained them for 20+ years. They never seem to share what halcyon
> heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
> can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
> commend it.
While there are certainly more, there are several possibilities I am aware
of and likely it's a combination that varies with each. First, when one
stops exercising, the peak one was at is not sustained. To what degree
and how fast it falls off varies with the individual. Secondly Paul spoke
about how spiritually the veil of consciousness can be raised and drawn
back. When one changes their focus from positive expansive growth to
negative deconstruction(or visa versa) over such a long period of time, in
any field, they create a strong mental mold that becomes their new
'reality' which makes it difficult to acknowledge anything to the
contrary. The mind then suppresses objectivity.
Another thing I have observed is than a large percentage of the hardcore
apostates were very young when they became Eckists. The basis of their
beliefs came from immature or naive mind patterns. Much of there
criticisms today are based on those perceptions. It's akin to one saying
that I was 'lied to and deceived' by those that taught me Newtonian
physics because I've grown to see Quantum physics clearly is the truth of
reality.
> Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
> used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
> joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
> Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
> Indeed the same applies to any religion.
In many ways I've outgrown how I used to perceive Eckankar. In fact it
seems to me that if ones perceptions are not changing, one is not growing.
Vilifying ones past perceptions is self destructive.
> Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
> interested in building than destroying.
That's a truth. However, the apostates dodge that by using logical
fallacies and imagining things about others that are not the truth. A
current example is Kent imagining that we "attempt to silence" him, that
we believe those who leave Eckankar "are somehow deeply flawed", that what
you wrote is "entrapping and threatening language", that destroying
Eckankar is "an act of service", ect.
It's my experience that most people who move on from Eckankar to not fall
into the apostate syndrome.
Take care Robert,
Rich
"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Ahhh. So, people who leave eckankar are flawed... because they call
> eckists flawed... for calling people who leave eckankar flawed. It goes
> in a circle.
>
> This is an example of the logical fallacy used in debate known as
> "circular argument." Eckankar literature and followers first claim
> those who leave their religion are spiritually ill and flawed. Then
> when someone critisizes eckankar for making such entrapping statements,
> they are, in turn, again accused of being flawed, this time for calling
> the eckists flawed for calling people who leave their religion flawed.
> This is a PERFECT example of circular argument.
The circle started, as is so often the case, with a *false* statement by
Kent. No Eckist here has said that those who leave Eckankar are flawed.
The fact is that a they have indicated just the opposite.
I said, "It's my experience that most people who move on from Eckankar do
not fall into the apostate syndrome."
Robert wrote, "Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in
the world."
Cher wrote, "The difference is when we figure out that change is
inevitable and gracefully allow that to take place."
Plenty more from almost every Eckist who ever posted here.
Rich
"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Rich wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> There are a few diehard apostate naysayer detractors
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F41678
>> here who will never stand for this kind if straighforward personal
>> experience. They've spent years here polishing their responses with,
>> at
>> best, half truths. It's become their reality and they are welcome to
>> it.
>> My experience has been that trying to to dialog with them is a waste of
>> time. I finally put some of them on my Block Sender list. If you're
>> going
>> to hang around here you might find that helps to clean up the signal to
>> noise ratio. IMO they are on a different wave length that has no
>> receptors for contact with the Light and Sound of God, Soul Travel or
>> being a channel for Spirit.
>>
>> Rich
>
>
> Here we go again. Rich has been putting this link on for years.
Specifically because readers can compare how the behavior of a few here
matches the research that this link delineates.
http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Wilson/
"Every religion which makes claim to a definitive body of doctrine and
practice which it regards as exclusively its own, is likely to be faced
with the fact that from time to time some erstwhile members will
relinquish their allegiance and cease to subscribe to the formalities of
the faith, in at least some, perhaps all, of its teachings, practices,
organization, and discipline. Apostasy has been a common phenomenon in the
history of the various denominations of the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim
tradition. Each new schism from an already established organization of
faith has been likely to be seen, by those from whom the schismatics have
separated, as a case of apostasy. There have been dramatic instances on a
large scale, as in the so-called "great schism" of the eastern (Orthodox)
and western (Catholic) churches, and in the emergence of Protestantism at
the Reformation. (It needs to be added, if only for the record, that the
dissentient and departing parties have generally no less often accused
those remaining in the earlier established body of apostasy from some
earlier putative standard of faith and practice.) Given the number of
religious bodies in Christiandom which originated in schism, it must be
clear that apostasy has been of widespread and common occurrence.
Not every incident of apostasy results in the formulation of a
deviant and separate religious party or sect, however. Apostasy may be
considered no less to occur when a single erstwhile believer renounces his
vows and his former religious allegiance. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, at a time of crisis in Christian belief, there were
some celebrated cases of apostasy from the Roman Catholic Church. They
were represented as occurring in that church because of the rigour of its
requirements of belief and practice; because of its resistance to
modernism; and in particular because it encouraged the most devoted of its
votaries to join monastic orders or congregations. Some of the lurid
stories of monastic life, purportedly related by apostated monks and
nuns -- the celebrated case of Maria Monk was widely publicised -- turned
out to be largely fictional, but were much used by the anti-Catholic
propagandist media of the day. In the present age of religious pluralism,
in which a spirit of ecumenism prevails among many of the major Christian
denominations, and in which the so-called "switching" of allegiance from
one of these movements to another is not uncommon, the charge of apostasy
is less frequently heard. But since c. 1960, with the appearance in
western society of various new minority movements which have distinctive
religious teachings and which require a strong sense of specific
commitment, ***a member who departs is likely to be regarded as
apostatizing, and all the more so, of course, if that member then proceeds
to ridicule or excoriate his former beliefs and to vilify those who were
previously his close associates.***
In recent decades, given the emergence of so many new religious
bodies which make strong demands on the loyalty of their members,
instances of apostasy have become matters of considerable attention for
the mass media. ***The apostate's story, in which he is usually presented
as a victim,*** is seen as good news-copy for the media, particularly if
he offers to "reveal" aspects, and perhaps secrets, of the movement to
which he formerly belonged. In consequence, apostates receive perhaps an
unwarranted amount of media attention, particularly when they are able to
present their previous allegiance in terms both of their own vulnerability
and the manipulation, deception, or coercion exercised by the leaders and
members of the movement into which they were recruited. Because these
accounts are often the only information normally available to the general
public about minority religions, and certainly the most widely
disseminated information, the apostate becomes a central figure in the
formation (or misformation) of opinion in the public domain concerning
these movements.
Academic scholars interested in religious minorities, and in
particular sociologists, in whose field this subject matter particularly
lies, normally pursue their scholarly enquiries by a variety of
well-recognized methods. They gather their data not only by archival
research and the study of printed matter and documents, but also by
participant observation, interviews, questionnaire surveys and, directly
to the point at issue here, from informants. Apostates are often very
willing informants, but sociologists generally exercise considerable
caution with respect to this possible source of evidence. As I have
written elsewhere, in discussion of the sociologist's techniques of
inquiry:
Informants who are mere contacts and who have no personal motives for
what they tell are to be preferred to those who, for their own purposes,
seek to use the investigator. ***The disaffected and the apostate are in
particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection.
The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to
reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame
those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the
apostate learns to rehearse an 'atrocity story' to explain how, by
manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to
remain within an organization that he now forswears and condemns.***
Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a
profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or
produced as books (sometimes written by 'ghost' writers). [Bryan Wilson,
The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990,
p.19.]
***Sociologists and other investigators into minority religions have
thus come to recognize a particular constellation of motives that prompt
apostates in the stance they adopt relative to their previous religious
commitment and their more recent renunciation of it. The apostate needs to
establish his credibility*** both with respect to his earlier conversion
to a religious body and his subsequent relinquishment of that commitment.
To vindicate himself in regard to his volte face requires a plausible
explanation of both his (usually sudden) adherence to his erstwhile faith
and his no less sudden abandonment and condemnation of it. ***Academics
have come to recognize the "atrocity story" as a distinctive genre of the
apostate, and have even come to regard it as a recognizable category of
phenomena*** [A.D. Shupe, Jr., and D. G. Bromley, "Apostates and Atrocity
Stories", in B. Wilson (ed.), The Social Impact of New Religious
Movements, New York, Rose of Sharon Press, 1981, pp. 179-215.] The
apostate typically represents himself having been introduced to his former
allegiance at a time when he was especially vulnerable -- depressed,
isolated, lacking social or financial support, alienated from his family,
or some other such circumstance. ***His former associates are now depicted
as having prevailed upon him by false claims, deceptions, promises of
love, support, enhanced prospects, increased well-being, or the like.***
In fact, the apostate story proceeds, they were false friends, seeking
only to exploit his goodwill, and extract from him long hours of work
without pay, or whatever money or property he possessed. Thus, the
apostate presents himself as "a brand plucked from the burning," ***as
having been not responsible for his actions*** when he was inducted into
his former religion, and as having "come to his senses" when he left.
Essentially, his message is that "given the situation, it could have
happened to anyone." They are entirely responsible and they act with
malice aforethought against unsuspecting, innocent victims. By such a
representation of the case, ***the apostate relocates responsibility for
his earlier actions, and seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which
he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the religious
group which he has lately abandoned.***
New movements, which are relatively unfamiliar in their teachings and
practices, and the beliefs and organization of which are designed in terms
that are new or newly adapted, are most susceptible to public suspicion;
If they have secret or undisclosed teachings, or appear to be
exceptionally diligent in seeking converts, or have a distinctive appeal
to one or another section of the community (e.g., the young; students;
ethnic minorities; immigrants, etc.) or if the promises of benefit to
believers exceed the every-day expectations of the public at large, then
they may easily become objects of popular opprobrium or even hostility.
The atrocity stories of apostates, particularly when enlarged by the
sensationalist orientation of the press, feed these tendencies, and
enhance the newsworthiness of further atrocity stories. Newspapers are
will known to recapitulate earlier sensationalist accounts when locating
new stories in similar vein about particular movements -- ***a practice
designated by some sociologists as the use of "negative summary
events."*** ["This refers to the journalistic description of a situation
or event in such a way as to capture and express its negative essence as
part of an intermittent and slow-moving story. ***An apparently isolated
happening is thereby used as an occasion for keeping the broader,
controversial phenomenon in the public mind."*** -- James A. Beckford,
Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements,
London, Tavistock, 1985, p. 235.] ***By this means, the dramatic import of
each apostate's story is reinforced in its significance,*** to the
detriment of objective and ethically neutral enquiry into religious
phenomena of the kind undertaken by academic sociologists. Contemporary
religious bodies, operating in a context of rapid social change and
changing perceptions of religious and spiritual belief, are likely to be
particularly susceptible to the disparagement and misrepresentation which
occurs through the circulation and repetition of the accounts of
apostates.
***Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law
can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of
evidence.*** He must always be seen as one whose personal history
predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious
commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a
personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by
showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have
become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, ***he is
likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his
grievances*** to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more
in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."
*** common things I've seen here ***
> Numerous writers have debunked this anti-apostate hate rhetoric.
Kent's attacking the messengers of the research doesn't absolve the
behavior of those in this NG.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There
cher
Oogie wrote:
> signon77 wrote:
> > Rich,
> >
> > The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
> > energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
> > sustained them for 20+ years.
>
> Likewise for the energy spent in defending Eckankar.
The group is named "alt.religion.eckankar" just in case you forgot! If
someone showed up on your door step and started shouting about how ugly
your wife is, and how your children are all retarded... would you sit
with your fingers laced in taylor position and smile like Buddha at
them? Is that what you're saying to us alfie? Because that's exactly
what's happening here..... The discourse long ago left any hope of
pointing to short comings of this path, and turned to ugly hateful
attacks. If a person stands up and says "hey, buddy... you're full of
it" suddenly that person is framed as less than acceptable. But the
truth is, it's a perfectly normal response under the circumstances. You
demand the right to come here and say anything you want to, no matter
how ugly, spiteful or untruthful it might be and then you riducule
people for standing up to you. It's a zero sum game, and you want to be
the winner. <sigh> Life just isn't like that, in the real world.
>
> They never seem to share what halcyon
> > heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
> > can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
> > commend it.
>
> They realized it was all their doing and not the work of Eckankar.
If that were the case, then why don't these realized beings offer any
promise to do this without the path? Because from where I sit, all we
see on this group is the lowest form of human behavior. That's hardly a
good advertisement for what you're sharing here. Not only is there
nothing uplifting or positive in the messages of detractors, but
frankly the obvious intention to destroy and tear down is the very
definition of negative. It's all right there for anyone to see....
Imaginary fabric leads to naked detractors.
> >
> > Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
> > used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
> > joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
> > Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
> > Indeed the same applies to any religion.
>
> And of course, Eckankar is the highest form of spiritual conciousness,
> right?<GG>
It's our understanding of spiritual consciousness. If you don't agree
with it, then find something that works for you! If that something fits
and works for you, then you'll spend less time reacting to what you
fear someone else might have that you don't have. Then you won't feel
so threatened and insecure. It's just that simple. You cannot add to
your consciousness by ridiculing someone elses state of
consciousness.... what they have you can't touch. It's theirs. Own your
own, and do something creative and positive with it for a change.
> >
> > Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
> > interested in building than destroying.
>
> On a.r.e. they build grudges and destroy the character of nayasayers.'
LOL.. If you want bridges, then build one! Start today! Ridiculing
others for not building it for you is just welfare thinking and
victimology. If you want this group to be something different, then
change who bring to the group. No one here can destroy a naysayers
character.... that's silly. Character assassination is an attack on
reputation, not on character. Any fool recognizes that much, alfie.
> Klemp is a hypocrite. The eck.org preaches tolerance for other
> religions. I do believe they owe other religions an apology for
> tolerating THEM.
Excuse me? Now you are complaining about tolerance? <sigh> First you
complain that no one wants to be your friend, and now you're
complaining about tolerance? tsk... some mothers children. <shaking her
head> See, thisi s the shortcoming of character assassination first
hand! That's how people recognize it's not the target they need to
wonder about but the attacker! <sigh>
Oogie
> Oogie wrote:
>
>>signon77 wrote:
>>
>>>Rich,
>>>
>>>The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
>>>energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
>>>sustained them for 20+ years.
>>
>>Likewise for the energy spent in defending Eckankar.
>
>
>
> The group is named "alt.religion.eckankar" just in case you forgot!
Anf that means what?
If
> someone showed up on your door step and started shouting about how ugly
> your wife is, and how your children are all retarded... would you sit
> with your fingers laced in taylor position and smile like Buddha at
> them? Is that what you're saying to us alfie? Because that's exactly
> what's happening here.....
I don't remember anyone claiming that this newsgroup is a doorstep to
entering the bliss of Eckchanges of ideas. If that were its original
attempt, then it was very shortlived. I only recall years and years of
bickering from both sides once David Lane started the systematic
debunking of this silly path.
The discourse long ago left any hope of
> pointing to short comings of this path, and turned to ugly hateful
> attacks. If a person stands up and says "hey, buddy... you're full of
> it" suddenly that person is framed as less than acceptable. But the
> truth is, it's a perfectly normal response under the circumstances. You
> demand the right to come here and say anything you want to, no matter
> how ugly, spiteful or untruthful it might be and then you riducule
> people for standing up to you. It's a zero sum game, and you want to be
> the winner. <sigh> Life just isn't like that, in the real world.
Remember Bee's song about Alfie? Remember Jessica Weiss? Remember Sean's
tongue in cheek post about having lunch with my CEO and questioning his
hiring practices...REMEMBER THE PHONE CALL FROM HAWAII? All the workings
of Eckists who had to take it outside the box.How about you...the queen
of condescension. All threats and unbridled nastiness coming from the
Eck camp..
>
>
>> They never seem to share what halcyon
>>
>>>heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
>>>can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
>>>commend it.
>>
>>They realized it was all their doing and not the work of Eckankar.
>
>
> If that were the case, then why don't these realized beings offer any
> promise to do this without the path? Because from where I sit, all we
> see on this group is the lowest form of human behavior. That's hardly a
> good advertisement for what you're sharing here. Not only is there
> nothing uplifting or positive in the messages of detractors, but
> frankly the obvious intention to destroy and tear down is the very
> definition of negative. It's all right there for anyone to see....
> Imaginary fabric leads to naked detractors.
Why don't you share some of your dreams and experiences with the ECK?
Why? Because you're not allowed to and you are afraid to,and the burden
of proof is not on the detractors for questioning Eckankar, it is on YOU
and your past and present leaders to prove it. From where most of us
have read, it is not very impressive nor convincing. Even those who have
been there and done it for years give up on it because it only works for
misfits and fringe bobbleheads.
>
>
>>>Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
>>>used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
>>>joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
>>>Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
>>>Indeed the same applies to any religion.
>>
>>And of course, Eckankar is the highest form of spiritual conciousness,
>>right?<GG>
>
>
> It's our understanding of spiritual consciousness. If you don't agree
> with it, then find something that works for you!'
MMMM NO! I like it just the way it is. I have something that works and I
STILL like to come here.
If that something fits
> and works for you, then you'll spend less time reacting to what you
> fear someone else might have that you don't have.
I could never in a gazillion years see what you or your religion could
ever possibly offer me. I fear nothing of the sort.
Then you won't feel
> so threatened and insecure. It's just that simple.
NO it isn't that simple. Not threatened. Not insecure. Just pleasantly
amused.
You cannot add to
> your consciousness by ridiculing someone elses state of
> consciousness.... what they have you can't touch. It's theirs. Own your
> own, and do something creative and positive with it for a change.
you are repeating yourself cher.
>
>
>>>Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
>>>interested in building than destroying.
>>
>>On a.r.e. they build grudges and destroy the character of nayasayers.'
>
>
> LOL.. If you want bridges, then build one! Start today! Ridiculing
> others for not building it for you is just welfare thinking and
> victimology. If you want this group to be something different, then
> change who bring to the group. No one here can destroy a naysayers
> character.... that's silly. Character assassination is an attack on
> reputation, not on character. Any fool recognizes that much, alfie.
Oasis! The site that despised those who threatened the very cornerstones
of Eckankar disguised as a light hearted approach to detractors.
Don't make me laff. It was a good try, but they went too far and well,
I just had to do something about it. Tsk
>
>
>>Klemp is a hypocrite. The eck.org preaches tolerance for other
>>religions. I do believe they owe other religions an apology for
>>tolerating THEM.
>
>
> Excuse me? Now you are complaining about tolerance? <sigh> First you
> complain that no one wants to be your friend, and now you're
> complaining about tolerance? tsk... some mothers children. <shaking her
> head> See, thisi s the shortcoming of character assassination first
> hand! That's how people recognize it's not the target they need to
> wonder about but the attacker! <sigh>
Talk to the hand beeyatch!
Oggie
cher
Oogie wrote:
> cher wrote:
> > Oogie wrote:
> >
> >>signon77 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Rich,
> >>>
> >>>The other curious thing about some of these apostates is the amount of
> >>>energy and effort they put into debunking a spiritual path that once
> >>>sustained them for 20+ years.
> >>
> >>Likewise for the energy spent in defending Eckankar.
> >
> >
> >
> > The group is named "alt.religion.eckankar" just in case you forgot!
>
> Anf that means what?
That it's not unique or unusual for anyone to "defend the path" as you
put it. Unfortunately this group has become so infamous for attacks by
detractors on anyone who posts here that it's just common knowledge to
avoid this place. <smile>
>
> If
> > someone showed up on your door step and started shouting about how ugly
> > your wife is, and how your children are all retarded... would you sit
> > with your fingers laced in taylor position and smile like Buddha at
> > them? Is that what you're saying to us alfie? Because that's exactly
> > what's happening here.....
>
> I don't remember anyone claiming that this newsgroup is a doorstep to
> entering the bliss of Eckchanges of ideas. If that were its original
> attempt, then it was very shortlived. I only recall years and years of
> bickering from both sides once David Lane started the systematic
> debunking of this silly path.
LOL..if this was a nice place, moderated and cleaned up, you'd never
post here! <wink>
>
> The discourse long ago left any hope of
> > pointing to short comings of this path, and turned to ugly hateful
> > attacks. If a person stands up and says "hey, buddy... you're full of
> > it" suddenly that person is framed as less than acceptable. But the
> > truth is, it's a perfectly normal response under the circumstances. You
> > demand the right to come here and say anything you want to, no matter
> > how ugly, spiteful or untruthful it might be and then you riducule
> > people for standing up to you. It's a zero sum game, and you want to be
> > the winner. <sigh> Life just isn't like that, in the real world.
>
> Remember Bee's song about Alfie? Remember Jessica Weiss? Remember Sean's
> tongue in cheek post about having lunch with my CEO and questioning his
> hiring practices...REMEMBER THE PHONE CALL FROM HAWAII? All the workings
> of Eckists who had to take it outside the box.How about you...the queen
> of condescension. All threats and unbridled nastiness coming from the
> Eck camp..
Yep, no doubt about it there is a "tit-for-tat" aspect of posting here.
<smiling> I noticed you didn't mention your posts to me after my
husband died or the ones from sharon comstock? I just ran across one of
hers on alt.eckankar while I was looking for a post, where she went
into the sickest details trying to associate pedophiles with my
granddaughter! <shudder> and then there's the little bitchy coward that
uses the anonymizers to post those sexual hate messages to me by name
on this group! Yeah.... it's not as if this group doesn't have enough
for both sides, alfie. So don't try to pull any of that wide eyed kent
addleman crap here, bud!
> >
> >
> >> They never seem to share what halcyon
> >>
> >>>heights of spiritual illumination they have attained since.If a path
> >>>can provide spiritual succour for 20+ years it must have a good deal to
> >>>commend it.
> >>
> >>They realized it was all their doing and not the work of Eckankar.
> >
> >
> > If that were the case, then why don't these realized beings offer any
> > promise to do this without the path? Because from where I sit, all we
> > see on this group is the lowest form of human behavior. That's hardly a
> > good advertisement for what you're sharing here. Not only is there
> > nothing uplifting or positive in the messages of detractors, but
> > frankly the obvious intention to destroy and tear down is the very
> > definition of negative. It's all right there for anyone to see....
> > Imaginary fabric leads to naked detractors.
>
> Why don't you share some of your dreams and experiences with the ECK?
LOL.. I have done just exactly that alfie! And what happened? I had my
posts torn to shreds by the likes of you and gary and kent and joe and
lurk and well.... you get the picture! I still post quoted material
from Sri Harold on this group, and look at what happens when I do! It's
taken as a personal insult that such things show up on this group for
you guys to cope with! Yeah... Why don't I share my dreams and
experiences? I don't because momma didn't raise no fool! <wink>
> Why? Because you're not allowed to and you are afraid to,and the burden
> of proof is not on the detractors for questioning Eckankar, it is on YOU
> and your past and present leaders to prove it. From where most of us
> have read, it is not very impressive nor convincing. Even those who have
> been there and done it for years give up on it because it only works for
> misfits and fringe bobbleheads.
LOL.. yeah, pearls before the swine just slides right over the top of
your head, right? <grin> I'm not afraid to share here, and there's not
a thing that any of you diehard detractors can say that would have any
effect or influence on those experiences! They're not mine for the
purpose of convincing anyone or trying to impress anyone, they're mine
because I earned them! Like I said, alfie... pearls before the swine!
They only draw the same insults and slurs you posted in the paragraph
above! Not worth it.. .and certainly not what I'd call a Vahana moment!
<wink>
> >
> >
> >>>Outgrowing a spiritual path is the most natural thing in the world. I
> >>>used to follow Christianity after a fashion.But I would never dream of
> >>>joining a Christian forum to trumpet all my misgivings about the faith.
> >>>Christianity is fine - if you need it at your level of consciousness.
> >>>Indeed the same applies to any religion.
> >>
> >>And of course, Eckankar is the highest form of spiritual conciousness,
> >>right?<GG>
> >
> >
> > It's our understanding of spiritual consciousness. If you don't agree
> > with it, then find something that works for you!'
>
> MMMM NO! I like it just the way it is. I have something that works and I
> STILL like to come here.
I doubt that, very much.. alfie! If you had something that worked for
you, it would influence how you see others. Unless of course you're a
fundamentalist. That is a possibility.
> If that something fits
> > and works for you, then you'll spend less time reacting to what you
> > fear someone else might have that you don't have.
>
> I could never in a gazillion years see what you or your religion could
> ever possibly offer me. I fear nothing of the sort.
That's a lie! Once upon a time it offered you something, or you
wouldn't have joined the path! You just fear others having something
you don't understand. Like I said, I doubt you have that something in
your life alfie. I doubt it very much.
>
>
> Then you won't feel
> > so threatened and insecure. It's just that simple.
>
> NO it isn't that simple. Not threatened. Not insecure. Just pleasantly
> amused.
Saddistically stimulated, you mean! There isn't any other reasonable
explanation for your being here. <shrug>
>
> You cannot add to
> > your consciousness by ridiculing someone elses state of
> > consciousness.... what they have you can't touch. It's theirs. Own your
> > own, and do something creative and positive with it for a change.
>
> you are repeating yourself cher.
It was worth repeating, alfie.
> >
> >
> >>>Those with a high degree of spiritual awareness are much more
> >>>interested in building than destroying.
> >>
> >>On a.r.e. they build grudges and destroy the character of nayasayers.'
> >
> >
> > LOL.. If you want bridges, then build one! Start today! Ridiculing
> > others for not building it for you is just welfare thinking and
> > victimology. If you want this group to be something different, then
> > change who bring to the group. No one here can destroy a naysayers
> > character.... that's silly. Character assassination is an attack on
> > reputation, not on character. Any fool recognizes that much, alfie.
>
> Oasis! The site that despised those who threatened the very cornerstones
> of Eckankar disguised as a light hearted approach to detractors.
> Don't make me laff. It was a good try, but they went too far and well,
> I just had to do something about it. Tsk
The only thing that was on the Oasis site was a breakdown of the
various psuedonyms and addy's used by detractors and quotes from their
own posts. Now I have to say in all honesty, I could never understand
why that in and of itself set you guys off into such a hissy fit! It
was your own footprints and your own quotes! There was nothing else
there concerning detractors. You represented yourselves! <shrug> You
like to pretend you did something about the site, but to be honest with
you we just got bored with it! There never was any problem with AOL as
the host or any question that the site couldn't have stayed on their
servers forever. So I don't know how you came to think you had any
thing to do with its dismise. <shrug>
> >
> >
> >>Klemp is a hypocrite. The eck.org preaches tolerance for other
> >>religions. I do believe they owe other religions an apology for
> >>tolerating THEM.
> >
> >
> > Excuse me? Now you are complaining about tolerance? <sigh> First you
> > complain that no one wants to be your friend, and now you're
> > complaining about tolerance? tsk... some mothers children. <shaking her
> > head> See, thisi s the shortcoming of character assassination first
> > hand! That's how people recognize it's not the target they need to
> > wonder about but the attacker! <sigh>
>
> Talk to the hand beeyatch!
Which is getto for "duh, I don't understand". <chuckle> Sure..
whatever....
Ken
Yep. The world's a big place. I have lots of friends who are
Christians and Buddhists and even atheists. Others I don't
even know what religion they follow if any. I don't see any of
them as failed or flawed and I don't see most of the people who
leave Eckankar that way either.
But it's fairly clear from Kent's own words that he does view
Eckists that way.
--
Ken
Sharon
<snipped stuff>
>
> Yep, no doubt about it there is a "tit-for-tat" aspect of posting here.
> <smiling> I noticed you didn't mention your posts to me after my
> husband died or the ones from sharon comstock?
Here are mine!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A question for everyone .
From: "Sharon2000" <brighttigr...@yahoo.com>
Date: 20 Apr 2002 00:20:33 GMT
cher <gruendem...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> sharon.... you really do give yourself wayyyyyyyyyyy toooooo much
> credit! LOL.... Try insignificant to most people on planet earth? That
> might be more fitting. Geez.... I guess for someone like you, any
> attention is better than no attention whatsoever, hey?
> Pathetic.
>
Well, Grundie, hate to tell you this, but I *have* played a bit of a
part
in keeping people out of your silly cult.
BTW...you're not even that good as reigning ECKCUNT here at a.r.e. -
although I must say, you're much better than that silly twit, Windy.
You've obviously got a bit of education -- I used to tell Windy she
oughtta
take some adult courses. I think it would help her out. Anyway,
Grundie...you're basically mediocre, even at getting down & dirty.
S, you're a grieving widow, huh? Golly gee, and you posted that your
posting history here started *before* your husband died of a heart
attack
while shoveling snow? So...how long did he lay outside in agony while
you
were sitting warm & cozy indoors, spewing your own special brand of
"eckluuuuuuv" on the computer? <ggg>
According to your "teachings", Grundie, he chose to leave, and you both
chose it together or something? You know...that stuff about lessons
you
both needed? So...you should be *happy* that he "moved on" to those
higher
planes?
Was he a cult member, too, Grundie? Evidently he left some insurance,
since obviously you're still able to spend your days being a
"co-worker"
and you don't have to go out and earn a living. So...be thankful!!
Remember, Harold (whoops...I mean "the mahanta", which is supposedly,
for
the public, something different) never gives you more than you can
handle.
He doles out your karma appropriately.
Personally, I think maybe your late hubby had accumulated some good
karma
so he was allowed to escape!
Maybe you & Windy/Rita could get together and console each other? Of
course, I believe Windy lied about Bob's death. He wasn't a cult
member.
I think he just dumped her. But, I'm sure she could get another one on
the
computer, like she got Bob. They met on an internet bulletin board,
you
know! And I wonder, since she changed ISPs, is she shacking up with
someone else now? I believe I may have had the thought that since
Steve
Runfeldt's nice little eckmarriage fell apart when faced with family
tragedy, well...Windy & Steve could get together....so who knows?
<ggg>
Damn, I just miss doing sheep jokes!!
Bye!
SHARON
> Sharon2000 wrote:
> >
> > "Garland C. Peck" <p...@info-internet.net> wrote:
> > > If both Eckists and Non-Eckists were to meet together outside A.R.E.
> > > do you think it would be possible to spent a couple of hours together
> > > in mutual dignity and respect ?
> >
> > You've gotta be kidding!
> >
> > It's been almost four years - and I must say, my experience in leaving
> > this cult has taught me that 99% of the cult members here would
> > gleefully stick a *real* knife in my back *or* front if they could get
> > away with it.
> >
> > And those eckists with whom I am still friendly with on the internet do
> > NOT want this fact known. It might ruin their chances for advancement
> > in the cult.
> >
> > The limited internet contact with cult members here is more than I'd
> > prefer to have, thank you, but it's necessary to "give back" and
> > hopefully prevent more people from making the mistake *I* made when I
> > got sucked in.
> >
> > Reminds me of a quote I loved years ago - before the cult, in fact -
> > from Frank Herbert's "Dune" - something about not spending time with
> > people who you wouldn't want to die with. I remember giving a lot of
> > thought to that - how it's silly to waste your time with garbage, you
> > know?
> >
> > Life is too short, and there are too many *nice* things & people to
> > fill it with!!
> >
> > Sharon
> >
> > --
> > FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/links
©2006 Google
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where do you fit?
From: "Sharon2000" <brighttigr...@yahoo.com>
Date: 21 Apr 2003 04:11:17 GMT
gruendemann <gruendem...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So let me see if I'm getting this correctly then... alf. My husband is
> dead so of course that makes your life better than mine by comparison?
> Is that how you manage to measure yourself in this world? Is this what
> you see as a basis for self esteem? tsk... what a sick little peanut you
> are, alfie. :-\
Hmmmm....odd, Grundie, because before your hubby croaked, you
frequently
made a point of flaunting your "married" status, with the implication
that
anyone who *hadn't* found a buyer at the cultural meat market was
"lower"
... but that's all in the archives, you sick little peanut!!
Yep...you certainly seemed to base your self-esteem on your marital
status!! It's all in the archives, for those who care to look
further...
I guess since the hubby's gone, you have to base your self-esteem on
chosen-people cult membership now, huh?
Cruising usenet looking for widows to slur so you can
> seem like a happy man in your imagination. Yepper, it's easy to see the
> Mahanta had nothing to do with that, alrighty! :-)
Actually, Grundie, I sent the "needsalife" or whatever posts to Alf,
because I have more time than he does, and I thought he would find it
amusing.
You know...I believe I sort of asked you before...how long was your
husband
laying out there, dying of a heart attack while shoveling snow, before
you
pulled yourself away from the computer and noticed???
According to your cult's teachings, well...you *know* what your cult
teaches. . .
I've been in Satsangs with other eckwidows, Grundie. Your cult's
"teachings" are bullshit. In the "real" world, death happens. In the
cultworld, well...you chose to have your husband die, or he chose to
"desert" you....maybe because he couldn't take anymore & he had some
good
karma accumulated...<ggg> You need the lesson of widowhood.
Or...maybe
it's something you created? Are you enjoying the insurance money? I'm
sure your former hubby is in a much better place now. <ggg>
>
> Too bad you don't have any connections in the music industry. <wry grin>
> That garage band thing gets old after twenty years.
>
Jealous, Grundie?
Hey...you watch the soap with Reva? Isn't she the same actress who
used to
be on Days of Our Lives? Damn, I forget what character....they tend
to
bounce from one soap to the next...is the one you're watching the one
DOL's
"Stefano" moved to? I thought he was incredibly sexy -- I have a
"thing"
for deep voices & European accents!!!
Oh...who's the guy with the cute butt on your soap? I remember
now...what
a hoot, you watch "Guiding Light"!!! Is it a blue light???? <ggg>
Seriously, just reading your posts at their newsgroup, well...maybe if
I
have time I'll check out GL, it looked interesting....except I don't
even
have time to keep up with DOL, but I get updates from my
daughter-in-law...
Hey, on GL, do they put the kids upstairs for naps when they're little,
and
then suddenly they wake up & they're sexually active teenagers? Pretty
cool, actually...probably the moms have looked age 30 for 30 years
because
the kids spent all their time taking naps!!
Have a good one, unless you'd like a bad one for "spirichul growth",
Grundie, you obnoxious eckcunt!!! <ggg>
Try rechargeable batteries - the insurance $$ will last longer!!
Sharon
©2006 Google
---------------------------------------------
So, Grundie, what's the problem? You can dish it out, but you can't
take it, can you?
> I just ran across one of
> hers on alt.eckankar while I was looking for a post, where she went
> into the sickest details trying to associate pedophiles with my
> granddaughter! <shudder>
Well, I can't imagine why you seem to be a bit surprised about finding
one of my posts on alt.eckankar, since they're all cross-posts of
whatever I post here!! You responded to it here, too. And thanks
for the reminder, haven't been here for quite awhile and I'd forgotten
about cross-posting to alt.eckankar, just in case a "newbie" drops by
there first.
What *I* think is sick is people like you, who think there's nothing
wrong with someone who gets turned on by children, and thinks poor
Jerry Mulvin was being picked on for doing something totally innocent
like uploading kiddie porn. Maybe if you read those "sickest
details", you'll change your mind? They're in the files at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth
Now, I wouldn't recommend that people go back in the archives and look
up all of *your* old posts.... you reveal enough of yourself here every
day, all day long, and that's more than enough to send the reader
running for the bathroom to puke. Except personally, I can't run fast
enough - I just reach for the trashbasket under my desk. But yeah, I
think people *should* take the time and read your history here.
That's another thing I did there at the end of my eckdays, after I came
here....oh yeah, I *tried* to hang on to my belief in all that crap,
kept searching for the truth - but it kept looking worse and worse for
the cult. I was shocked and horrified when I saw what was going on
here, but going back in the archives only gave me more proof that
e-kult was a crock.
Subject: New Mahanta, Living ECK Master - FEMALE!!!
From: brighttigr...@yahoo.com
Date: 23 Dec 2005 16:23:24 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar,alt.eckankar
This one's a hoot - anyone know anything more about this character?
So, Grundie - congrats on the grandbaby! Have you sent her photo to
that
poor persecuted but totally innocent Jerry Mulvin for that "harmless"
collection of downloaded kiddie porn that got him arrested & listed on
the
AZ pervsite? Are you going to hire him for babysitting? Did you ever
think that possibly your interference on his behalf might result in
someone
*not* knowing he's a perv - even though in your opinion, downloading
kiddie
porn is no biggie. Did you buy any chance catch the NBC Dateline
specials?
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9927253/
Let us not forget, Jerry Mulvin admitted to fingering babies under
their
diapers when he was a teenager. Then he joined your cult and made
rapid
progress and quickly became a "high initiate", and was even on the list
of
those who were considered likely replacements for Twitch. Hey, do you
realize he might've become the LEM except he *wasn't* screwing Gail?
I
guess she was too old for him. Mulvin liked 'em even younger than
Twitch
did.
Twitchell "chose" him, Grundie. I guess the omnipotent, omnipresent,
and
omniscient Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, didn't think fingering
babies is
a big deal.
Don't be surprised when people start talking publicly about how they
were
molested and even forcibly raped by high initiates. And what's really
disgusting is that in every case I've heard of, even when the perv was
arrested and convicted, after getting out they were still accepted as
eckists, and their victims are expected to "move on" and be cordial to
their molesters!!!
Anyone familiar with the eckist who used to post on the old "Golden
Hearts"
eckforum? The music teacher who claimed he was innocent and *didn't*
molest one of his students? I suspect he's the real reason they nuked
that group - last thing I remember, he'd lost his wife, family, job,
etc. -
too bad, he'd successfully infiltrated a Christian church's choir!
Yep, Grundie - send Jerry Mulvin a picture of your granddaughter. He's
probably still running the new little cult he started, claiming to be a
"master".
So, are you crusading to get the laws changed so people like Jerry
Mulvin
aren't labeled Class 2 Felons?
Every time you hold that baby or change her diaper, I hope you think of
Jerry Mulvin. And since you think kiddie porn is so harmless, why
don't
you look into a modeling career for your new granddaughter?
Pervs don't usually start out fingering babies as teenagers and then
limit
themselves to just looking at kiddie porn for the rest of their lives.
They only get worse, Grundie, not better.
Sharon
--
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth
(especially the files and links sections)
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2006 Google
---------------------------------------------------
and then there's the little bitchy coward that
> uses the anonymizers to post those sexual hate messages to me by name
> on this group!
Poor baby! Hey, I *do* happen to agree with you on this one!
I've gotten the same thing from eckists.
Just posting obscenities certainly doesn't discredit your cult, only
the person who posts them. On the other hand, maybe the poster is
just trying to genuinely express the feelings you inspire in your
readers. That's why I call you "eckcunt".
What I think is *really* obscene are the eckquotes I post!! You know,
stuff like this:
"Those who are without the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, are pagans,
little better than those life forms just below that of man." PT, SKS
II, page 173
" . . . each of those who are ECKists must come to the realization that
they each, belong to the chosen race of the superior being. All others
are aliens, that is those who have not yet voluntarily taken up the
path of ECK. These aliens, as we speak of them, are, in a way, heathens
or pagans who have not yet found truth. They are the agents of the Kal,
and the enemy of those who are the followers of ECK." PT, IWL, pg. 168
Well....sweet dreams!! Unless you're having nightmares because since
you're such a good widdle eckie, the Mahaunta is letting you work out
your karma in the dream state! <gg> And you *are* a good one!!!
You epitomize what Twitch & Klemp want all cult members to strive to
achieve, but with you, it seems to come *so* naturally!!!
"We find that the only way to the heavenly world is via the path of
ECK. At this point, we must become intolerant of all other ideas which
try to creep into our consciousness." Paul Twitchell, The Secret Way,
L. 12 (members-only discourse)
"Those who have become recruited into ECK must realize this from the
beginning. Because of this power of the ECK, these persons must show
initiative, resourcefulness, and a fanatical loyalty to ECK." PT,
Satsang III, L. 3 (discourse)
"If the chela is not possessed of this quality of dedication and
loyalty to the path of ECK, his incarnations are lengthened in this
world, and he shall not be able to enter into the next worlds at the
end of this present life." PT, Shariyat 1, Chapter 6
"Therefore, as you can readily see, my greatest task is not to gather
disciples for ECK, but to create a corps of "true believers." This
corps must convince itself that it's the only moral position in the
universe. Their moral absolution gives them the right to dissolve what
they judge to be amoral according to the conditions of the world and
its higher spheres. The breaking up of the old traditional religions
and reestablishing of the rightful beliefs under the banner of ECK is
the way of the right [...] Indeed such attitudes are not only felt to
be right, but it's an obligation to those who belong to the ECK Truth
Corps. This truth corps is often known as "the Mahanta's children." PT,
Satsang III, L. 2
Hmmm...that last one is interesting!! I guess you consider pedophila
"moral" since you don't agree that pervs should be arrested and
exposed?
The scary thing is, it's not just *you*. It's many eckists whose
souls have been defiled and twisted by the cult, and quite often, the
longer they're in and the more initiations they get, the worse they
get. I'm so glad you and all the other eckthugs are here to show the
*true* dark soul of eckankar, its true "inner". That's what I really
like about a.r.e. - and I'm so grateful it is, because it helped me
wake up and get free, along with hundreds of other cult victims!
Did you get your 5th yet, BTW? Betcha MN is *real* proud of you!!!
Sharon
*****************************************************************************
Don't be deceived by what looks like an innocent and interesting
presentation on dreams, reincarnation, etc. at your local library,
community center, or bookstore. That's how cults like eckankar recruit
new members. Look before you leap - check out a short & *truthful*
intro video at: http://tinyurl/hw7p7 or
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3445598315015162387&q=eckankar
****************************************************************************
tianyue
> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > Ahhh. So, people who leave eckankar are flawed... because they call
> > eckists flawed... for calling people who leave eckankar flawed. It goes
> > in a circle.
> >
> > This is an example of the logical fallacy used in debate known as
> > "circular argument." Eckankar literature and followers first claim
> > those who leave their religion are spiritually ill and flawed. Then
> > when someone critisizes eckankar for making such entrapping statements,
> > they are, in turn, again accused of being flawed, this time for calling
> > the eckists flawed for calling people who leave their religion flawed.
> > This is a PERFECT example of circular argument.
>
>
> The circle started, as is so often the case, with a *false* statement by
> Kent. No Eckist here has said that those who leave Eckankar are flawed.
> The fact is that a they have indicated just the opposite.
>
Harold Klemp and Paul Twitchell both have stated that those who leave
eckankar are flawed, you silly fool. If you don't agree with the
founders of your own religion, I applaud this, but, unfortunatley, you
don't control what your leaders say.
Tianyue
cher
Sharon wrote:
cher
tianyue wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > > Ahhh. So, people who leave eckankar are flawed... because they call
> > > eckists flawed... for calling people who leave eckankar flawed. It goes
> > > in a circle.
> > >
> > > This is an example of the logical fallacy used in debate known as
> > > "circular argument." Eckankar literature and followers first claim
> > > those who leave their religion are spiritually ill and flawed. Then
> > > when someone critisizes eckankar for making such entrapping statements,
> > > they are, in turn, again accused of being flawed, this time for calling
> > > the eckists flawed for calling people who leave their religion flawed.
> > > This is a PERFECT example of circular argument.
> >
> >
> > The circle started, as is so often the case, with a *false* statement by
> > Kent. No Eckist here has said that those who leave Eckankar are flawed.
> > The fact is that a they have indicated just the opposite.
> >
>
>
> Harold Klemp and Paul Twitchell both have stated that those who leave
> eckankar are flawed, you silly fool. If you don't agree with the
> founders of your own religion, I applaud this, but, unfortunatley, you
> don't control what your leaders say.
>
> Tianyue
LOL.... Kent... people on this group have pointed out to you for over a
decade now that the religion has changed since you left, not that you
would notice given the path you apparently practiced had little or
nothing to do with Eckankar to begin with! <chuckle> I suggest you
recheck your propoganda notes and get up to speed on some of these
issues! <wink>
cher
Sharon wrote:
Rich
"cher" <Gruen...@gmail.com> wrote
> :-)
>
> Sharon wrote:
ECKANKAR STUDY
I wasn't that involved with the formal organization for most of my
almost 15 years in it.
======================================================================
There wasn't a whole lot of actual "physical"
contact, and I didn't have a lot of interaction with other eckists,
and wasn't able to get to a lot of satsangs & study groups
======================================================================
<giggle> I used to feel guilty because when there was a choice
between an eckfunction and a Habitat thing, I skipped the eckstuff.
======================================================================
I was *so* happy when an HI from my old home traveled all the way here
to have Satsangs. I was really sad when I was thrown out because when
you're in Satsang, well...if you miss three, you're out.
======================================================================
I didn't "practice" the "spiritual exercises" --
sitting down for 20 minutes a day, same time,
same place, and hypnotizing myself.
======================================================================
And as far as the "Light and Sound," well.. no
maybe I didn't "embrace and understand"
======================================================================
You know...and I've posted this...I don't know whether reincarnation
is true or not.
======================================================================
I can't say I believed or disbelieved, really. Well...I probably
believed/disbelieved in a lot of things, but mostly, well...
======================================================================
I don't really have a firm opinion on whether or not "evil" and "satan"
exist as Christianity teaches, but...if I *did* believe in that stuff
(and I don't exactly *disbelieve*, I'm undecided), well...it's quite
clear to me that Harold Klemp and many eckists are simply being
deceived and controlled by demonic influences.
======================================================================
At this point, I cannot honestly even say that I believe in God.
Or if I believe in "anything" in particular.
======================================================================
Anyway...talking about rest periods, I took a year off once.
Or, I tried to. Wrote and told MM I needed a year off, for
several reasons...I was really overwhelmed with school and
other things in life, and not able to give eckankar and my
"spiritual" life the time and attention it deserved, on the
inner and the outer.
<SNIP>
I'll be honest, I was sort of pissed off because I DIDN't get a
"rest period" at all!!! I figured...everything would just be
sort of "turned off" for a year. But...it wasn't. And...I
couldn't figure out why!
I mean, I'm not going to go into details or anything, just to
say that, well...aside from not having contact with the
discourses (which I'd been neglecting anyway) and the eckbooks
and not even thinking or doing what I recognize now as just
eckancrap, well....I just didn't get the "break" I wanted and
felt I needed.
======================================================================
SEX
That's great that you got out of high school early!! I did too...
<giggle> ... I was pregnant, and they kicked us out back then...I
could have kept my mouth shut about it, but, well...that's not me!
======================================================================
actually, you know...getting pregnant wasn't a mistake. More of an
"inner voice" thing, I'd say... I wasn't screwing around, and even
as a teenager knew exactly when I was ovulating...
======================================================================
They should pay you for those movies, you know. Hey...
years ago, a friend of mine knew some people... well...
she got $50 just for getting a guy "aroused" off camera!!!
I'll tell ya...I was IMPRESSED!!
=====================================================================
You know, I can't remember if it was four or five years ago,
but I was raped. It would have been easier if it had been a stranger
- and a minority group member, which would have given me somewhere to
aim my anger. But it happened to be a close friend, someone I'd known
for 20 years, someone who was like a brother. His wife & I were
friends. His mother & I were friends. I may have even been tempted
to have an affair with him under different circumstances...
=====================================================================
(Well...I'm certainly glad I don't have sex with priests, or
share needles with them! <g> And I'm glad AIDS wasn't around
back in my grandparents' time, when my grandfather was drinking
and going to the whorehouses with the priests. He might have
infected my grandmother!
=====================================================================
Okay, I went to confession once before Easter, that's what's required.
Forgot all the formal words of course, just told Father Neil I felt I
hadn't really sinned, okay I wasn't perfect but talked to God all the
time, and was working on it. Okay...I'd "fornicated" a lot, but
sorry...I don't think you need a license. Just love. Without love,
yes...it's a sin. Okay, I've sinned. So...I got absolved. Wasn't
necessary...I stopped having sex without love a long time ago...but
that was an "inner" thing... <giggle>...anyway, actually, well...
I *did* genuinely always love a lot of people!! Still do...in
different ways, perhaps...
======================================================================
I think sometimes, well...when the third eye opens, and you get that
kundalini stuff happening, well...what you attract isn't always GOOD!
That's what happened to me, you know!!! It's sort of like a homing
signal for psychic-level vampires...the scent of fresh innocent blood..
======================================================================
I had to laugh when the doctor said I should do Kegels...
<giggle> You know...I've been doing them for over 30
years...they become a habit...
======================================================================
Anyway, the only past-life memories I ever had (supposedly) was of
being a slut in ancient Greece and again in 15th-16th century France.
In Greece, I was a young priestess on a mission who got distracted by
some guy...I think he was a shepherd. Then supposedly this same guy
was my coachman in France, and we were screwing around.
======================================================================
DRUGS
Tried coke two or three times...three, now that I think of it. The
first two times, I exhaled...<giggle> ... really! My friends were
a bit upset. The third time...I got it right. Damn, did the
housework get done fast!! Really!! Honestly...that kitty litter pan
was so clean, you could eat out of it!! I polished, disinfected, and
dried it with cloth diapers left over from Amy...
Coming down was *NASTY* ... but it helped
me to understand why people got hooked on the stuff. I didn't like
it...it just wasn't "real." Never touched it again...
Another time...a scumbag put a chunk of crack in the hash pipe...and
silly me, I said "this doesn't taste like hash." That was a DIRTY
thing to do to a person...but I must say, it *is* possible to sort of
detach, refuse to participate in the effects, but to observe and learn
from it. Nasty, nasty stuff...a lot worse than just snorting the
powder...more deceptive, bigger & more powerful illusions...
======================================================================
So...have to laugh at this one...I was standing in line for
something at school, a couple hundred kids all over, but...I'm
a mom. We sort of scan the floor...and by golly, there was a
little rolled-up baggie at my feet! Moms pick things up, you
know...
Well, son of a gun, guess what it was!! Hadn't seen anything
like it (or smoked it) in probably 10 years...absolutely
beautiful golden sinsemilla, with lovely streaks of red...
Asked the people around me if they'd dropped it...lots of big
eyes & "Oh Wow's" but no one claimed it...
Didn't quite know what to do with it...didn't feel right about
giving it to someone, since that might hurt them in some
way...and damn, the stuff always helped me to
sleep, just half a joint after the kids were tucked in...
On the other hand, well...drugs are a no-no. But...could it
be some kind of gift, or test, or what?
Plus...I'm not a wasteful person. What I picked up was what
used to be a "dime" bag -- $10 - and one of the students said
it would cost around $50...they were amazed when I told them
I used to pay $15 for a big baggie of primo Columbian Gold...
Held onto it for a few days, thinking, taking it "on the inner"
and everything. Looking at every possible thing I could do, and
what would result from each choice I could possibly make in this
situation...
I decided...I was tired. I'd been bothered by not giving my
contemplations time & attention anyway, just overwhelmed with
everything...needed a break from something, but you can't drop
school, family, and everything else...
So...I smoked it. Got back on track with the sleeping, wrote to
the org for a year off, told them what I did, and the other
reasons for needing a break...
==================================================================
Grundie, 2 or 3 beers is *nothing*. Two or three sixpacks,
maybe...but by that time I'd be asleep, and not thinking
about your silly little cult & everything connected with it.
===================================================================
HOME
Where I live, there's some really nice forest, then a town,
then a smelly landfill
=======================================================================
You know, maybe moving to this horrible tin can was sort of
a "waking dream" ... an "outer" sign of the "inner" eckankar
thing....
======================================================================
half my tree had fallen on the trailer!!! A really BIG TREE!!!
But...NO DAMAGE!!!
...everyone is *amazed* that it actually felt right on my
trailer & you can't even tell!! Well...one shingle is sort of bent...
and the rain gutter was already a bit saggy...
=======================================================================
But I'll tell you... you wouldn't *believe* the piles of
books-to-be-read I've accumulated in the past months...the piles are
unreal, although I just managed to get most of them in big boxes while
I put up more bookshelves....
=======================================================================
the carpet's been rolled up in my hallway for three years now,
I tore out the trailer's carpeting last year (most of it)
because of my allergies
=======================================================================
HEALTH
Well, not to be indelicate...but for almost 25 years, until I had the
hysterectomy, that's what I called that monthly thing.
======================================================================
anyway...oh, one of my symptoms was also agoraphobia!! It
was weird, I knew it wasn't *me* ...and refused to participate
in it!! Although it was hard sometimes...
======================================================================
And, I'd been having problems sleeping.
I'd be exhausted, but even after a busy day with school & the
house & my son & the critters & everything else, well...still
couldn't sleep.
======================================================================
Isn't that fatigue a bitch? I'll tell you, I'd be scared
to death at times...it was like being in a coma, for three
or four hours, sometimes...I'd look like I was asleep, but
be totally aware...and know that if the trailer caught on
fire, I'd be unable to get out....
======================================================================
Cloth diapers wouldn't work for adults, Frank...no
plastic lining.
Actually...it's not really funny, and women shouldn't
be embarrassed about it. It happens...had that problem
myself, when I had all the health problems...and the
severe coughing. I'd even pass out sometimes. But I
found Serenity worked best...never felt embarrassed about
buying them. In fact, sometimes grocery store clerks would
ask...tell me they had the same problem...they seemed to
feel better when they found out they weren't alone...
I'm glad that's over with...and by golly, as I suspected,
smoking had NOTHING to do with the coughing. Anyway...
a lot of women end up having surgery for it...
======================================================================
(yeah, I know about that memory loss...brain fog...once,
I couldn't remember the names of my grandchildren, in a store...)
======================================================================
I'm blind as a bat without my glasses!!! Gotta get
used to the contacts again, I guess. Allergies sort of make it
difficult...
======================================================================
I'm sensitive to molds & certain perfumes....
======================================================================
And...way back in my dieting years, went to Overeaters
Anonymous...but I must say, thought THAT one was weird...
wow, people get weird about food! I'm just allergic to
most of the darn stuff...miss burritoes, actually. (sp?)
======================================================================
You know...in my early eckyears, I had this awful problem with
spastic colitis...for several years. Worse than natural
childbirth, let me tell you!! Doctors said give up the coffee...
I did. Tried a lot of things. Mostly...just had to live with
it, cope with it...and survive.
======================================================================
For some reason, an all protein diet...especially beef, often RAW...
works wonders for me.
======================================================================
my cervical cancer & hysterectomy in 1985,
======================================================================
You know, I've recently found out, it looks like I've got
that fibromyalgia...and have had it most of my life.
======================================================================
...and now, with carpal tunnel symptoms (which are also
fibromyalgia)
I know I have problems with a lot of hand-writing...pain and
numbness, for some reason, doesn't interfere with using a
computer, though...
======================================================================
MISC
==================================================================
I almost got my brother's gun, but didn't because I knew I'd use it.
And for a long time, it got to the point where I was having fantasies
about blowing away a man, any man, before I died.
==============================================================
I carry my gun down my bra....much easier to get to when I need it...
==================================================================
And I've got a good alarm system, a watchdog, and a gun - so any
thieves, murders, and rapists will leave me alone and go attack my
next door neighbor.
So I've got the face of Satan on my shower curtain. I haven't been
reacting to it. I just noted its presence. I think about the Eck
Masters, and place their faces over that of Satan. Okay, I could
iron the shower curtain (On low heat, of course, it's plastic). I
could throw it out and buy another. When it gets a bit moldy I'll
wash it, & that'll re-arrange the wrinkles. But I'm basically lazy,
I don't iron, and I pay for water by the gallon. It'll go away on
its own when it sees it's wasting its time.
======================================================================
I don't think of myself as a "garbage-picker," really...a few
of my friends just say that I'm the ultimate "recycler!"
======================================================================
For whatever reason, perhaps it's genetic, <g> I am incapable
of transcribing things exactly as dictated....something inside
just gives me the inclination to do it *my* way...
======================================================================
I didn't have *any* German in high school, but I *did* flunk both
French and Spanish!!
======================================================================
The oddest
thing happened....I was in the grocery store, and the
woman in front of me forgot to pick up a bag with a dozen eggs in it.
Normally, well...I would have taken them and run after her. I do
things like that. But it was strange....and I thought
"Why the heck am I doing this?" I kept them. Took them home.
======================================================================
hey, a lot of these people are perfectly capable of getting a job
washing dishes. Or maybe cleaning a highway rest stop. <giggle> You
know...that was my first job when I graduated with my BA in 1995...
======================================================================
Actually...I like Jesus. He's dead. Sort of. Not
really. It's like...my grandmother is still alive. She
lives in my heart...that's what the resurrection is all
about, sort of. Only...moreso. Anyway...I like
Christianity. Lots of freedom of choice...informed consent...
no psychic alien mind-beams & stuff...
I have to agree....one thing I DO NOT
like about Christianity is that threat of the
resurrection of the body!!!! I've had different
interpretations...and oh horrors, yes...some sects says
that even if I have the damn thing cremated, God can
STILL bring it back!!!!!
Don't know what the heck Catholicism teaches...
Personally, if I come back, I wouldn't mind being a rock,
or a tree, or a cat....not one who's kept indoors, though.
Well...whether I come back, or go to heaven (or a
reasonable facsimile) I *would* like a new body & curly
red hair if I'm going to be human (or a reasonable
facsimile of a human.)
======================================================================
HEY ECKIES!!!! GUESS WHAT I DID!!! I'M HAVING MASSES SAID FOR THE
POOR LOST SOUL OF PAUL TWITCHELL!!!!! Not because I necessarily
*believe* but hey, it certainly can't hurt...plus...IT'LL IRRITATE
THE HELL OUT OF HIM!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
======================================================================
I snore, you know...haven't heard it myself, but the grandkids tease
me about it...
======================================================================
And next time I'm out in the woods doing a sort of nekkid Wicca ritual
(except I can never keep track of what color candles you're supposed to
use for what...I just use what I pick up on clearance racks)
======================================================================
Fall is GORGEOUS!!! A bit chilly for Wiccan stuff <ggg> but last
Samhain, it was quite warm in my rock circle....
======================================================================
But anyway, yeah...as Spring approaches, my pagan blood starts stirring
I've been practicing all winter for a big Spring ritual, sort of,
because well when you're out in the woods there aren't any potties
around...but, darn, I always forget the name & date of the official
Spring holiday. Haven't done one of those really big
nekkid-in-the-circle-under-the-trees things since the totally awesome
purification-from-the-cult ritual I did back on Halloween 1998, and it
*did* feel incredibly purifying. And warm inside the circle.
======================================================================
I wouldn't hurt anyone anymore than I'd hurt a fly. Whoops....no,
I think flies are dirty and disgusting. I swat them, and then, because
I don't like squished flies, I put the bodies in the ashtray, which is
always handy. But, because years ago I noticed they're not always dead
when you think they are, and they'd recover and fly off, well...you
know, I always have my BIC handy. So...I'd torch them to make sure.
Then... once one started sort of spinning around. It was pretty neat.
So.... before I torch them totally, sometimes I'll just hold the BIC on
one side and watch them spin around...
======================================================================
I'm surprised...I used the "f" word twice here yesterday. I
don't usually swear...don't
even *think* the "f" word usually. Well, I guess I do swear...
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&btnG=Google+Search&as_oq=f++fuc...
======================================================================
PS...I'm not an OLD bag. I'm a middle-aged one for a few more
years. Except maybe under my eyes.
Honest to God, I'd read ages ago that Miss America contestants used
Preparation H under their eyes to tighten up the skin...ha, like
Miss America contestants have a problem there. Anyway...I tried it,
but it didn't work for me. Plus it's pretty yukky and hard to wash
off.
======================================================================
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how
to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day."
Well, actually I prefer to fish from shore, but after a few
beers I was feeling really spirichul so I got down on my knees
in the proper position that my Master likes best...and by
golly, It Works For Me!!!!
======================================================================
I don't think I'm pathetic or dumb. I do a hell of a lot better job
of being hateful & nasty than *they* do, don't you think? <ggg>
And the longer I'm at it, the better I get!!
======================================================================
God, I am SUCH a bitch!!!! <ggg> I LOVE IT!!!!
======================================================================
But you know, it's just like aliens...darn, I would *love* to talk to
some, you know? Had one who used to play my Atari, but it
didn't say much. Ended up hogging the Atari & wouldn't let me
have a turn, so I just sort of ignored it, and it went away.
Didn't even have to waste my time using a handy-dandy all
purpose "spell" against entities...basically, it's just "F*** off,
asswipe" ...
======================================================================
Subject: Re: Sharon on Sharon
Date: 07 Jan 2001 05:11:05 GMT ***
From: Sharon2...@playful.com
Organization: Eckankar Sucks
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.eckankar
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
"Oh...there's a lot of joking in the quotes you posted,
but on the whole after scanning through them quickly,
I'd say yeah...they're accurate"
***note A few quotes were added in since the post just above
For Newbies, this is the organizer of the detractors speaking about
herself on this newsgroup. She started and is the moderator of their
discussion group. She is the one who put up so many WebPages. She is the
one who blatantly has infringed on Eckankar's copyrights. A fitting
leader for them, hey?
cher
tianyue wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > There are a few diehard apostate naysayer detractors
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20F41678
> > here who will never stand for this kind if straighforward personal
> > experience. They've spent years here polishing their responses with, at
> > best, half truths. It's become their reality and they are welcome to it.
> > My experience has been that trying to to dialog with them is a waste of
> > time. I finally put some of them on my Block Sender list. If you're going
> > to hang around here you might find that helps to clean up the signal to
> > noise ratio. IMO they are on a different wave length that has no
> > receptors for contact with the Light and Sound of God, Soul Travel or
> > being a channel for Spirit.
> >
> > Rich
>
>
> Here we go again. Rich has been putting this link on for years.
> Numerous writers have debunked this anti-apostate hate rhetoric. There
> are experts who consider the testimonies of former members to be very
> clear and valid.
>
> Here's a link
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E2216135D
>
> tianyue
If the people that you refer to here are actually experts, then they
would not make a blanket statements such as this one kent! Especially
not given the hysteria of the "devil worshippers of California" and the
findings of the APA! The end of the 1990's meant the "witch hunts" had
ended in favor of rational common sense! Now that's not to say to that
the testimony of some former members might not be of value, it's as
selective a process as any other area that calls for witness testimony!
Ask any law enforcement official if all witness testimony holds up in
court? The fact that a person is a former member does not
automatically lend credibility to what they have to say. Sociologists
have learned the hard way to take it very slow and careful when dealing
with former members, because they're loyalties to their new affiliation
can color their atrocity stories to suit their group. There is no such
thing as broad sweeping generalizations that automatically set
standards for either side of this issue. A careful thoughtful analysis
of the information, and investigation of such stories has proven to be
the best of options.
wernertrp
Rich, please can you make such a curriculum vitae excerpt of me.
Please use my posts from a.r.e. a.c.4w and d.a.p.
werner-VI Kraut und Rüben
Rich
"wernertrp" <schube...@t-online.de> wrote
Rich, please can you make such a curriculum vitae excerpt of me.
Please use my posts from a.r.e. a.c.4w and d.a.p.
Rich:
I don't know what those two things at the end mean, but sure. You pick.
Send me the links to your favorite posts you have written. At the least
many of yours will be creative, intelligent and funny though. I hadn't
read this in a very long time but I just did now. Hard to beat...
Sharon's a classic archetypal apostate.
Sharon
tianyue wrote:
> Twitchell himself wrote, "It is good to be born in a church, but it is
> bad to die in one."
Just for the heck of it, I looked to see if I could find the original
author of this "twitchquote" -
As far as I've been able to determine, Swami Vivekananda (1863 - 1902)
is the original author of this quote, which I found at:
http://www.vedanta.com/straighttalk.html
"So far as they are not exclusive, I see that the sects and creeds are
all mine; they are all grand. They are all helping men towards the real
religion. I will add, it is good to be born in a church, but it is bad
to die there. It is good to be born a child, but
bad to remain a child. Churches, ceremonies, and symbols are good for
children, but when the child is grown, he must burst the church or
himself."
I also found this one:
http://www.livinginthelightms.com/livinginthelight
Doctor Julian (Johnson), The Path of the Masters, goes
even further to say, and I quote, "It is good to be
born in a church, but it is bad to die there. Just as
it is good to be born a child, but bad to remain a
child. Churches, ceremonies, and symbols are good for
children, but when the child is grown, he must burst,
either the church or himself."
Now, I'm going to refrain from an opinion on this - either Johnson
"plagiarized" this one before Twitch plagiarized it from Johnson, or
perhaps Vivekananda is given credit somewhere in "Path of the Masters".
I found *this* one amusing, though!!
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/klist/k2000b/k20a04425.html
I think Sai Baba said it best:
"It is good to be born in a religion, but not so good to die in one."
Another interesting one is a quote eckists assume is from the
Twitchster - I believe Gail may have started it and used it in a
seminar talk - got this one at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous, crossposted
from one of Ford Johnson's BBs:
"Thank you for asking where I found the quote by Buddha. I read it on
page 349, in Julian Johnson's book, published 1939, "The Path of the
Masters." Julian Johnson wrote: "A rule laid down by the noble
Buddha is a most excellent one for all men to follow. He (Buddha)
said that if you propose to speak, always ask yourself-`is it true,
is it necessary, is it kind?'" "
Just thought others might be interested in accuracy, as I am!!
Sharon
Oogie
I recount the telephone call to my mother; thinking it was MY phone
number. He actually lied to her by saying I was a "friend" of his from
the Internet and coerced her to give him my own phone number to call me
and reprimand me for my irresponsible posts on a.r.e.!!<GG>
He may be a little guy but sure has a lot of balls.
By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an "enlightened HI from
the Eckankar Organization" who uses smear tactics to discredit
detractors when he should be chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu.
Did you ever rent that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed
a roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady job OR your
wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself that your wife is a
teacher and pays for your food and shelter and long boat rides out in
the Pacific? Tsk! Real men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady
jobs and provide for themselves and the family.
cher
Oogie wrote:
> As I recall, Rich Smith always gets his underwear stuck up his ass when
> I recount the telephone call to my mother; thinking it was MY phone
> number. He actually lied to her by saying I was a "friend" of his from
> the Internet and coerced her to give him my own phone number to call me
> and reprimand me for my irresponsible posts on a.r.e.!!<GG>
Well alfie, which is it then? You're the one who keeps suggesting that
if we were to meet face to face over coffee we'd probably be friends,
right? And yet one phone call to you personally and you act as if this
was treason! As for calling your mom, well..... I guess you haven't
been invited to a class reunion in a very long time, or you're still
hanging out with your high school friends! Parents get calls for their
adult children fairly often, it's just not uncommon or for that matter
a huge issue... unless you're trying to equate it with say....
scientology. <grin> I think you're whining about this particular issue
is just you attempting to get attention again. <sigh>
> He may be a little guy but sure has a lot of balls.
> By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an "enlightened HI from
> the Eckankar Organization" who uses smear tactics to discredit
> detractors when he should be chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu.
Well, that wouldn't even make a good refrigerator magnet, come on now!
You were a member for less than 6 months and you are going to tell us
what an HI should or shouldn't be? LOL......
> Did you ever rent that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed
> a roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady job OR your
> wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself that your wife is a
> teacher and pays for your food and shelter and long boat rides out in
> the Pacific? Tsk! Real men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady
> jobs and provide for themselves and the family.
LOL.... <shaking her head> You guys sound like the "desperate
housewives"! Catty little bitches. <sigh>
cher
aphorism.... then perhaps you'd have a point here sharon. <sigh> That's
why it's such a waste of time dealing with apostates who have an
agenda. tsk......
Sharon wrote:
> tianyue wrote:
>
> > Twitchell himself wrote, "It is good to be born in a church, but it is
> > bad to die in one."
>
>
> Just for the heck of it, I looked to see if I could find the original
> author of this "twitchquote" -
>
> As far as I've been able to determine, Swami Vivekananda (1863 - 1902)
> is the original author of this quote, which I found at:
> http://www.vedanta.com/straighttalk.html
<snip>
Ken
> As I recall, Rich Smith always gets his underwear stuck up
> his ass when I recount the telephone call to my mother;
> thinking it was MY phone number. He actually lied to her by
> saying I was a "friend" of his from the Internet and coerced
> her to give him my own phone number to call me and reprimand
> me for my irresponsible posts on a.r.e.!!<GG> He may be a
> little guy but sure has a lot of balls.
I'm sure Rich will appreciate the approval that you've bestowed
upon the size of his manhood.
> By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an
> "enlightened HI from the Eckankar Organization" who uses
> smear tactics to discredit detractors when he should be
> chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu. Did you ever rent
> that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed a
> roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady
> job OR your wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself
> that your wife is a teacher and pays for your food and
> shelter and long boat rides out in the Pacific? Tsk! Real
> men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady jobs and
> provide for themselves and the family.
Heh! For all you know, Rich could be independently wealthy.
--
Ken
Ken
> LOL.... well, if you can be charged with plagiarism for
> using an aphorism.... then perhaps you'd have a point here
> sharon. <sigh> That's why it's such a waste of time dealing
> with apostates who have an agenda. tsk......
In for a dime, in for a dollar!
;-)
>
> Sharon wrote:
>> tianyue wrote:
>>
>>> Twitchell himself wrote, "It is good to be born in a
>>> church, but it is bad to die in one."
>>
>>
>> Just for the heck of it, I looked to see if I could find
>> the original author of this "twitchquote" -
>>
>> As far as I've been able to determine, Swami Vivekananda
>> (1863 - 1902) is the original author of this quote, which I
>> found at: http://www.vedanta.com/straighttalk.html
> <snip>
--
Ken
Oogie
> Oogie wrote:
>
>>As I recall, Rich Smith always gets his underwear stuck up his ass when
>>I recount the telephone call to my mother; thinking it was MY phone
>>number. He actually lied to her by saying I was a "friend" of his from
>>the Internet and coerced her to give him my own phone number to call me
>>and reprimand me for my irresponsible posts on a.r.e.!!<GG>
>
>
> Well alfie, which is it then? You're the one who keeps suggesting that
> if we were to meet face to face over coffee we'd probably be friends,
> right? And yet one phone call to you personally and you act as if this
> was treason!
I stand by my word. Rich wasn't calling to shoot the breeze. I would
have gladly had a nicer conversation with him had he let me get a word
in edgewise. He was hell bent on telling me off. I even tried to spread
an olive branch and say "Let's start from Ground Zero". He refused. It
was his way or no way. Do you want to call me? Go ahead. You know the
number.
As for calling your mom, well..... I guess you haven't
> been invited to a class reunion in a very long time, or you're still
> hanging out with your high school friends! Parents get calls for their
> adult children fairly often, it's just not uncommon or for that matter
> a huge issue... unless you're trying to equate it with say....
> scientology. <grin> I think you're whining about this particular issue
> is just you attempting to get attention again. <sigh>
You don't get it. My mom remembers most of my friends. It caught her off
guard. Case in point, she received a call about a year ago from my
friend in Washingtion State. He is a seismologist and wanted to come to
Jersey and get together with me. Bill asked how she was and how long
it's been since they've spoken (nearly 20 years!). She felt comfortable
giving him my number.
>
>>He may be a little guy but sure has a lot of balls.
>>By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an "enlightened HI from
>>the Eckankar Organization" who uses smear tactics to discredit
>>detractors when he should be chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu.
>
>
> Well, that wouldn't even make a good refrigerator magnet, come on now!
> You were a member for less than 6 months and you are going to tell us
> what an HI should or shouldn't be? LOL......
Don't you think I've learned a lot more here than being involved with
Eckankar? It's been a long time, sure, but to me it truly is a
fascinating subject aside from my short lived stint.
>
>
>>Did you ever rent that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed
>>a roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady job OR your
>>wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself that your wife is a
>>teacher and pays for your food and shelter and long boat rides out in
>>the Pacific? Tsk! Real men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady
>>jobs and provide for themselves and the family.
>
>
>
> LOL.... <shaking her head> You guys sound like the "desperate
> housewives"! Catty little bitches. <sigh>
Hahahaha! That's what Sharon always tells me. Maybe you two are on the
same page for once. But ONLY once!
Oogie
>
Oogie
> Oogie wrote:
>
>> As I recall, Rich Smith always gets his underwear stuck up
>> his ass when I recount the telephone call to my mother;
>> thinking it was MY phone number. He actually lied to her by
>> saying I was a "friend" of his from the Internet and coerced
>> her to give him my own phone number to call me and reprimand
>> me for my irresponsible posts on a.r.e.!!<GG> He may be a little guy
>> but sure has a lot of balls.
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure Rich will appreciate the approval that you've bestowed upon the
> size of his manhood.
I said balls, Ken. Get your organs straight......if you can!<GG>
>
>
>> By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an
>> "enlightened HI from the Eckankar Organization" who uses
>> smear tactics to discredit detractors when he should be
>> chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu. Did you ever rent
>> that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed a
>> roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady
>> job OR your wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself
>> that your wife is a teacher and pays for your food and
>> shelter and long boat rides out in the Pacific? Tsk! Real
>> men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady jobs and
>> provide for themselves and the family.
>
>
>
> Heh! For all you know, Rich could be independently wealthy.
That's not the vibe I get from what little he reveals about himself. If
he were wealthy why would he be involved in MLM? Why would he and his
wife need a roomate in a small condo? I don't begrudge the guy for
trying to make a living but while being fiercely private about his life,
he is the first one to piece together a montage of Sharon post excerpts
to try and make her look bad. He is devious and loves revenge.
What about Rich? Does he believe the Holocaust was a massive karmic
payoff like Ben posted on his web page which Rich took offense to?
He ay come off like a professional sailor, but who knows, he might get
nosebleeds from snorkelling!!<GG>
Oogie
>
tianyue
Yes, one just has to laugh. Did Twitchell say anything that wasn't
stolen? Amazing. Another thing about the PT quote about "good to be
born in a church, but not to die in one" is the fact that he has
Rebazar stating this. So, ol' Rebazar is just a circus puppet parroting
the words of everybody else.
It seems the fictional Rebazar has conversed with Doug far more on the
inner than he ever did with Twitchell. Unlike Doug in his posts,
Twitchell had to plagiarize in order to find something for Rebazar to
say. Gawd, it makes a person shake one's head and wonder, eh?
Tianyue
tianyue
> > Sharon wrote:
Well, according to Rich, Sharon wrote some of these things he's
gathered together. The trouble with this sort of smear is that
everything is taken out of context, so the meaning can be distorted.
Rich loves this kind of tactic. Remove the context, then reassemble the
words to smear another person. Very small of him, I'd say. When Rich
can't prevail drawing upon sound reason and facts (something that
happens to him often), he resorts to his favorite old standby: Slander
and smear tactics. In this, he definitely stands alone in his element.
Lets take a look at the little snippets of statements he's put
together.
>
> ECKANKAR STUDY
>
> I wasn't that involved with the formal organization for most of my
> almost 15 years in it.
This happens to be true of most eckists. In fact, Eckists like to point
out that being active in the org isn't a requirement. People usually
get promoted in the initiations despite lack of participation in the
organization. Even Rich likes to point out that the organization isn't
the real eckankar. So which is it, Rich?
====================================================================
> There wasn't a whole lot of actual "physical"
> contact, and I didn't have a lot of interaction with other eckists,
> and wasn't able to get to a lot of satsangs & study groups
>
Right. Well, again, it seems Rich has forgotten that even he has
pointed out that one can "soul travel" to see the supposed masters.
There are eckists in remote areas who never get to a meeting. Is Rich
ridiculing them as well?
====================================================================
> <giggle> I used to feel guilty because when there was a choice
> between an eckfunction and a Habitat thing, I skipped the eckstuff.
>
So, choosing a Habitat thing (Habitat for humanity??) is bad, choosing
a potluck is good? What does this say about Rich's values? He could
care less about those who are lacking in housing? What a red-neck!
====================================================================
> I was *so* happy when an HI from my old home traveled all the way here
> to have Satsangs. I was really sad when I was thrown out because when
> you're in Satsang, well...if you miss three, you're out.
>
>
Yes, I remember Sharon relating this story. She had trouble getting to
the meetings for some very good reasons, as I recall. This reflects the
old fashioned protestant work ethic in eckankar: Don't ever be late to
a meeting, and miss three and you're out. Apparently prudish Rich takes
offense at this. He thinks Sharon is very bad for missing meetings.
Shame on you, Sharon! How could you??? You'll never get to heaven if
you don't show up to a meeting! Meetings are so, so, so very important
to Rich. So, are we to assume that Rich, as 'Mr. Organization Man,'
never missed a meeting, or never once was late, and never once decided
there was anything else that might be more pressing than a good
organizational eck meeting? Kind of lets us all in on his real nature,
eh? What a guy....
====================================================================
> I didn't "practice" the "spiritual exercises" --
> sitting down for 20 minutes a day, same time,
> same place, and hypnotizing myself.
>
Not sure just what the context was here, but I knew many High Initiates
who didn't do the exercises, and yet they advanced anyway. They simply
kept quiet about lack of doing the exercises. It seems Rich hasn't
heard of these guys. These same H.I.'s were asked for advice about
which initiates should receive more initiations! And Klemp has said
that in our modern era with so many time constraints, some people have
to find a new way to contact the Eck, such as just chanting silently
all day long. I guess this doesn't apply to Sharon, according to Mr.
Organization Man. He loves to find fault, eh?
====================================================================
> And as far as the "Light and Sound," well.. no
> maybe I didn't "embrace and understand"
>
Well, it seems many don't have experiences in eckankar. Klemp says not
to worry. But it seems Rich thinks Sharon is different than all the
ones Klemp mentioned.
====================================================================
> You know...and I've posted this...I don't know whether reincarnation
> is true or not.
>
Ah, is Sharon actually questioning something? Tsk, tsk. Every good
eckist knows that questioning eckankar doctrine is a very bad thing.
Mr. Organization Man never questions. Never. Not when it comes to
eckankar. No way.
====================================================================
> I can't say I believed or disbelieved, really. Well...I probably
> believed/disbelieved in a lot of things, but mostly, well...
>
Ah, Sharon followed the middle way, neither believing nor disbelieving.
Mr. Organization Man does not approve!! He is a definite true believer.
No questioning for him. If Klemp tells him to jump off a cliff, Rich
asks only how far out should he jump. No parachute needed for that boy,
no sir. And any koolade, even if it has white powder floating
suspiciously at the surface, will be gulped down with a silly grin.
He's a good loyal Organization Man!!
====================================================================
> I don't really have a firm opinion on whether or not "evil" and "satan"
> exist as Christianity teaches, but...if I *did* believe in that stuff
> (and I don't exactly *disbelieve*, I'm undecided), well...it's quite
> clear to me that Harold Klemp and many eckists are simply being
> deceived and controlled by demonic influences.
>
Well, that does it. Klemp, with all his nasty threats about what will
befall those who dare to question him, is called demonic? Why, that's
heresy! Burn her at the stake, or, post something mean about her on the
internet. We can't have people going around making such statements!!!
====================================================================
> At this point, I cannot honestly even say that I believe in God.
> Or if I believe in "anything" in particular.
>
Taoists don't believe in God. They say Dao is older than God. Go
figure. Many spiritual people take issue with the label of "god." To
question the existence of god is a bad thing? Once again, we see Mr.
Organization Man's hatred of those who question basic assumptions.
Don't ever question around this guy.....or he'll question your
motives.
====================================================================
> Anyway...talking about rest periods, I took a year off once.
> Or, I tried to. Wrote and told MM I needed a year off, for
> several reasons...I was really overwhelmed with school and
> other things in life, and not able to give eckankar and my
> "spiritual" life the time and attention it deserved, on the
> inner and the outer.
> <SNIP>
> I'll be honest, I was sort of pissed off because I DIDN't get a
> "rest period" at all!!! I figured...everything would just be
> sort of "turned off" for a year. But...it wasn't. And...I
> couldn't figure out why!
>
>
> I mean, I'm not going to go into details or anything, just to
> say that, well...aside from not having contact with the
> discourses (which I'd been neglecting anyway) and the eckbooks
> and not even thinking or doing what I recognize now as just
> eckancrap, well....I just didn't get the "break" I wanted and
> felt I needed.
Well, in retrospect, Sharon didn't miss much in wanting a rest period
or in not reading every discourse. I read every discourse several times
over, and still left eckankar. But some of my good H.I. friends (you
know, people who were on eckankar boards, and were trusted with making
initiation recommendations) hardly ever spent much time on the
discourses.
Heck, as far as time off goes, I remember Klemp taking time off when he
was a third initiate to get drunk all the time. I mean, really, really
drunk, to the point of seeing green frogs. Large ones, hopping though
his living room.
====================================================================
> SEX (God Forbid!!!!)
>
>
> That's great that you got out of high school early!! I did too...
> <giggle> ... I was pregnant, and they kicked us out back then...I
> could have kept my mouth shut about it, but, well...that's not me!
>
Ooh, Sharon had sex? As a young woman? You know, like what every other
teenager was doing, except for Rich? Wow. Cool. I had sex too. All my
friends had sex. Everyone was having sex, it seems, except poor Mr.
Organization Man. And he definitely does not approve of sex, it seems.
======================================================================
>
>
> actually, you know...getting pregnant wasn't a mistake. More of an
> "inner voice" thing, I'd say... I wasn't screwing around, and even
> as a teenager knew exactly when I was ovulating...
>
Well, following the inner voice, now, that is no good if the inner
voice tells you to do something Mr. Organization Man doesn't approve
of, and as we all know, Rich clearly has a beef about people having
sex. Go figure...Twitchell said, in the Tiger's Fang, that sex is for
fun. Rich missed that part, I guess...
======================================================================
>
>
> They should pay you for those movies, you know. Hey...
> years ago, a friend of mine knew some people... well...
> she got $50 just for getting a guy "aroused" off camera!!!
> I'll tell ya...I was IMPRESSED!!
>
You may have been impressed, but not Rich. He does not approve of you
being impressed about your friend. You see, he gets really red in the
face when people talk this way. He doesn't like this sort of sexual
freedom, you know, the thing where you throw off the fetters of the
Victorian age and explore sexuality without embarrassment or shame.
Rich wants to bring back the days of cast iron chastity belts and unwed
mothers having babies in back alleys.
====================================================================
> You know, I can't remember if it was four or five years ago,
> but I was raped. It would have been easier if it had been a stranger
> - and a minority group member, which would have given me somewhere to
> aim my anger. But it happened to be a close friend, someone I'd known
> for 20 years, someone who was like a brother. His wife & I were
> friends. His mother & I were friends. I may have even been tempted
> to have an affair with him under different circumstances...
>
Sorry to hear that, Sharon. And poor Rich probably thinks it was all
your fault to be raped. You know, responsibility. And he probably still
thinks that when a woman say no, it means yes. Scary guy. And he
definitely doesn't approve of open discussion of the issues of rape,
since he's included your admission of this in his little smear.
====================================================================
> (Well...I'm certainly glad I don't have sex with priests, or
> share needles with them! <g> And I'm glad AIDS wasn't around
> back in my grandparents' time, when my grandfather was drinking
> and going to the whorehouses with the priests. He might have
> infected my grandmother!
>
No one in Rich's family has EVER done anything like that (or so Rich
naively thinks), so he thinks he is within his rights to look down on
you for your grandfather's behavior.
====================================================================
> Okay, I went to confession once before Easter, that's what's required.
> Forgot all the formal words of course, just told Father Neil I felt I
> hadn't really sinned, okay I wasn't perfect but talked to God all the
> time, and was working on it. Okay...I'd "fornicated" a lot, but
> sorry...I don't think you need a license. Just love. Without love,
> yes...it's a sin. Okay, I've sinned. So...I got absolved. Wasn't
> necessary...I stopped having sex without love a long time ago...but
> that was an "inner" thing... <giggle>...anyway, actually, well...
> I *did* genuinely always love a lot of people!! Still do...in
> different ways, perhaps...
>
Well, Rich probably is one of the remaining few Americans who think
Clinton having sex in the Oval Office was worse than Bush lying his way
into waging war for all the wrong reasons. You see, he missed the
sexual revolution, and went straight to abstinence as a birth control
method. He's been practicing it ever since, with no exceptions. So very
disciplined is Mr. Organization Man!!
===================================================================
> I think sometimes, well...when the third eye opens, and you get that
> kundalini stuff happening, well...what you attract isn't always GOOD!
> That's what happened to me, you know!!! It's sort of like a homing
> signal for psychic-level vampires...the scent of fresh innocent blood..
Klemp had his own troubles with psychic vampires, when he was committed
by the authorities to a mental hospital, after attempting to disrobe in
an airport in order to drive away the fog that was disrupting flights.
He had to fight them off in his room. I guess Rich forgot about that.
> >================================================================
>I had to laugh when the doctor said I should do Kegels...
> <giggle> You know...I've been doing them for over 30
> years...they become a habit...
>
Cool. But don't mention Kegel exercises around Mr. Organization Man. He
probably had to look up the word, but once deciphering the meaning,
blushed with embarrassment. Rich doesn't approve of such things. Heck,
the Chinese were doing such things thousands of years ago....But Mr.
Victorian Age Rich doesn't like any sort of exercise not listed in his
eck books, and this definitely won't be found there.
====================================================================
> Anyway, the only past-life memories I ever had (supposedly) was of
> being a slut in ancient Greece and again in 15th-16th century France.
> In Greece, I was a young priestess on a mission who got distracted by
> some guy...I think he was a shepherd. Then supposedly this same guy
> was my coachman in France, and we were screwing around.
>
Rich was never a slut in a past life. He probably has never had any sex
in any of his lives, which would explain a thing or two. He probably
was one of the people burning the sluts at the stake. Its too bad sex
has been so vilified in our society by people like Rich. Its a
completely natural instinct. But poor Rich and his hang-ups--it is
clear your comments have been determined by him to be unsavory enough
to use in his smear--and he has inadvertently revealed much about his
own disturbed conflicts with sex by taking issue with your open and
honest comments.
Well, I've run out of time. I'll get to the rest later. Lets call this
part one, and the next will be part two.
Tianyue
Ken
> Rich wrote:
>>> Sharon wrote:
>
>
> Well, according to Rich, Sharon wrote some of these things
> he's gathered together.
She wrote all of those things. I read them the first time and
believe me they didn't make much more sense in context. It's
not a slander or a smear Kent, it's her own words. Her *own*
words. If you want to see the context, use Google.
The trouble with this sort of smear
> is that everything is taken out of context, so the meaning
> can be distorted. Rich loves this kind of tactic. Remove the
> context, then reassemble the words to smear another person.
> Very small of him, I'd say. When Rich can't prevail drawing
> upon sound reason and facts (something that happens to him
> often), he resorts to his favorite old standby: Slander and
> smear tactics. In this, he definitely stands alone in his
> element. Lets take a look at the little snippets of
> statements he's put together.
Nah, let's not.
--
Ken
Ken
My head is shaking in wonder alright, but it's wondering how
you can find the motivation to try to make a mountain out of
such an insignificant molehill.
Oops, there's another one.
--
Ken
cher
Oogie wrote:
> cher wrote:
> > Oogie wrote:
> >
> >>As I recall, Rich Smith always gets his underwear stuck up his ass when
> >>I recount the telephone call to my mother; thinking it was MY phone
> >>number. He actually lied to her by saying I was a "friend" of his from
> >>the Internet and coerced her to give him my own phone number to call me
> >>and reprimand me for my irresponsible posts on a.r.e.!!<GG>
> >
> >
> > Well alfie, which is it then? You're the one who keeps suggesting that
> > if we were to meet face to face over coffee we'd probably be friends,
> > right? And yet one phone call to you personally and you act as if this
> > was treason!
>
> I stand by my word. Rich wasn't calling to shoot the breeze. I would
> have gladly had a nicer conversation with him had he let me get a word
> in edgewise. He was hell bent on telling me off. I even tried to spread
> an olive branch and say "Let's start from Ground Zero". He refused. It
> was his way or no way. Do you want to call me? Go ahead. You know the
> number.
And given your proven track record on this newsgroup, you expect me to
take your word for this exchange as you now share it? I don't think so
alfie. You're too well known for saying almost anything for the shock
value, so that you can enjoy the show. <chuckle> Once people recognize
that's your motive, it's all over with but the crying hon! <grin>
Knowing what I know of you from these years of posting, I would say
it's more likely that you thought you could manipulate the conversation
in such a way as turn it to your advantage. Sometimes, bullheaded is
shorthand for "not interested in playing games". <wink> I can't imagine
anyone bothering with a phone call to you today, unless they were
recording the exchange and posted the podcast for the group. <wink>
>
> As for calling your mom, well..... I guess you haven't
> > been invited to a class reunion in a very long time, or you're still
> > hanging out with your high school friends! Parents get calls for their
> > adult children fairly often, it's just not uncommon or for that matter
> > a huge issue... unless you're trying to equate it with say....
> > scientology. <grin> I think you're whining about this particular issue
> > is just you attempting to get attention again. <sigh>
>
> You don't get it. My mom remembers most of my friends. It caught her off
> guard. Case in point, she received a call about a year ago from my
> friend in Washingtion State. He is a seismologist and wanted to come to
> Jersey and get together with me. Bill asked how she was and how long
> it's been since they've spoken (nearly 20 years!). She felt comfortable
> giving him my number.
LOL.... TMI, as far as I'm concerned. I have no desire to know your
momma. <chuckle> The point is, it's not a moral issue to call someone's
momma! At least not to those of us over 10 years old! If she's listed
in the phone book, there is an expectation of being called by people
you don't recognize from your sons high school year book! <grinning>
>
> >
> >>He may be a little guy but sure has a lot of balls.
> >>By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an "enlightened HI from
> >>the Eckankar Organization" who uses smear tactics to discredit
> >>detractors when he should be chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu.
> >
> >
> > Well, that wouldn't even make a good refrigerator magnet, come on now!
> > You were a member for less than 6 months and you are going to tell us
> > what an HI should or shouldn't be? LOL......
>
> Don't you think I've learned a lot more here than being involved with
> Eckankar? It's been a long time, sure, but to me it truly is a
> fascinating subject aside from my short lived stint.
Actually no. Now granted you've managed in the years of rage to
identify with all the detractor accoutrements, and to memorize the
rhetoric used by the anti-member clan, but that doesn't mean that you
have a working knowledge of this path. I think that you've learned the
rhetoric of hate and victimology and that's what you display here on a
daily basis. That doesn't mean that this equates with a working
knowledge of the path in any way. Ponder this: you become interested in
a well known movie star. In light of that interest, you decide to read
every bit of gossip written about that particular star in all the
available press. Does that mean you know the star or who they are? A
reasonable adult would say "no". What you've done is exchange
experience for opinions. Other peoples opinions, to be exact. <shrug>
>
> >
> >
> >>Did you ever rent that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed
> >>a roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady job OR your
> >>wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself that your wife is a
> >>teacher and pays for your food and shelter and long boat rides out in
> >>the Pacific? Tsk! Real men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady
> >>jobs and provide for themselves and the family.
> >
> >
> >
> > LOL.... <shaking her head> You guys sound like the "desperate
> > housewives"! Catty little bitches. <sigh>
>
> Hahahaha! That's what Sharon always tells me. Maybe you two are on the
> same page for once. But ONLY once!
Hard to be on the same page when you're in two different books! <wink>
It's more likely that your jealousy is just that transparent. <shaking
her head>
>
> Oogie
>
> >
cher
Ken wrote:
> cher wrote:
> > LOL.... well, if you can be charged with plagiarism for
> > using an aphorism.... then perhaps you'd have a point here
> > sharon. <sigh> That's why it's such a waste of time dealing
> > with apostates who have an agenda. tsk......
>
>
> In for a dime, in for a dollar!
Ain't that the truth! <sigh> :-D
> ;-)
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Sharon wrote:
> >> tianyue wrote:
> --
> Ken
cher
tianyue wrote:
>
> Yes, one just has to laugh. Did Twitchell say anything that wasn't
> stolen? Amazing. Another thing about the PT quote about "good to be
> born in a church, but not to die in one" is the fact that he has
> Rebazar stating this. So, ol' Rebazar is just a circus puppet parroting
> the words of everybody else.
>
> It seems the fictional Rebazar has conversed with Doug far more on the
> inner than he ever did with Twitchell. Unlike Doug in his posts,
> Twitchell had to plagiarize in order to find something for Rebazar to
> say. Gawd, it makes a person shake one's head and wonder, eh?
>
> Tianyue
Another one who has never heard of an aphorism. <smile> Did you ever
bother to answer me when I asked you to name one religious text that
was purely original in content and message? I'm still waiting, just
making sure I didn't miss it if you presented it here! I'm sure that if
you're so hell bent in your belief that God will bring you something
you've never seen before in a way that you won't even identify with in
your particular culture, that you'd recognize this at once! Right? So
where is it, kent? Where is this perfect example of your expectations?
I understand this is an offshoot of your "entitlement" thinking, so you
must have felt compelled to find something that fits particular
personality quirk of yours. What's the name of the group? Who is the
leader? Where can we find the texts? Hmmmmm?
cher
tianyue wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > > Sharon wrote:
>
>
> Well, according to Rich, Sharon wrote some of these things he's
> gathered together. The trouble with this sort of smear is that
> everything is taken out of context, so the meaning can be distorted.
> Rich loves this kind of tactic. Remove the context, then reassemble the
> words to smear another person. Very small of him, I'd say. When Rich
> can't prevail drawing upon sound reason and facts (something that
> happens to him often), he resorts to his favorite old standby: Slander
> and smear tactics. In this, he definitely stands alone in his element.
> Lets take a look at the little snippets of statements he's put
> together.
Odd... because this is exactly the same tactic that detractors use when
addressing "quotes" from Paul Twitchell, or any ECKist they happen to
deem is worthy of attack, kent! You remove the context, and suddenly
you can twist the meaning of what's said in any direction you want it
go! A very common practice, particularly with those who write
"persuasive" pieces, such as you do kent!
> >
<snip kent's rationalizations> <shrug>
cher
Ken wrote:
> tianyue wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
> >>> Sharon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, according to Rich, Sharon wrote some of these things
> > he's gathered together.
>
>
> She wrote all of those things. I read them the first time and
> believe me they didn't make much more sense in context. It's
> not a slander or a smear Kent, it's her own words. Her *own*
> words. If you want to see the context, use Google.
This is kent, living his role of "hero" again. Remember how he tried to
so hard to re-invent Colleen Russell, all the while she was shooting
herself in the foot with each new post? <shaking her head>
Windmills..... a nice pasttime if you live in the late 18th century.
<grin>
>
> The trouble with this sort of smear
> > is that everything is taken out of context, so the meaning
> > can be distorted. Rich loves this kind of tactic. Remove the
> > context, then reassemble the words to smear another person.
> > Very small of him, I'd say. When Rich can't prevail drawing
> > upon sound reason and facts (something that happens to him
> > often), he resorts to his favorite old standby: Slander and
> > smear tactics. In this, he definitely stands alone in his
> > element. Lets take a look at the little snippets of
> > statements he's put together.
>
>
> Nah, let's not.
Oh, and here I thought kent gave us a very revealing into his mirror.
Rich posted quotes, and then a summation in his opinion. Kent posts
quotes, and then projects his own opinions into what's been said.
Essentially he projects himself onto the person he's slandering and
smearing. That's what's so funny about kent's attempts.....they're so
transparent. <shrug> It's perfectly human to have opinions and share
them. What's not healthy mentally is when you cannot step back enough
to recognize the opinions are yours not the person you're slandering
and smearing. <shrug>
>
> --
> Ken
cher
LOL.... another post that will fly right over kent's head! <chuckle>
tianyue
Not to worry, Ken. I've fixed the problem by reintroducing some context
in my reply to Rich's post. It appears that Rich and Co. have the
notion that the kind of openness and honesty that Sharon exudes in her
writings is bad, and prudishness and being overly concerned with
appearances, getting to meetings on time, and obeying various other
moral proscriptions are good. Rich tried to create a different context
of Sharon's writings by grouping certain phrases and images together,
thus changing the overall tone and meaning. In the process, Rich
overlooked the fact that he was giving the reader of his post a glimpse
into Rich's own over-the-top and restrictive moral pespective, which
appears to be decidely uptight, stiff, conservative, and prudish. He
seems to think talking about things such as being raped are in bad
taste, and that living in a trailer is so damning that he should
include it in his smear. Is Rich so upper-class in his upbringing
(laughing--this is a notion that is highly unlikely) that he can smugly
look down his nose at the rest of humanity, by exploitingly making fun
of the open sharing of another's personal history? When one looks at
Klemp's history, everyone else's pales by comparison, what with Klemp
crazily disrobing in airports to dispell fog, and jumping off the
bridges into deathly cold and sweeping rivers. And then there's
Twitchell, who gave people advise about their penises in his early
writings, and deliberately plagiarized a plethora of other writers.
Rich thus engages in moral relativism, exempting Klemp from his smear,
even as he goes after others. So, it is only fair to put Rich himself,
as well as other leaders of eckankar, under that moral lense to see
just how it all compares. If you don't like this, then don't do it.
Tianyue
> Ken
cher
people they're trying to protect by revealing what they're REALLY
THINKING of the "victim" in the first place! LOL....
Oogie
Ask Rich! I would have been be open to a conversation on level playing
ground!
>
>> As for calling your mom, well..... I guess you haven't
>>
>>>been invited to a class reunion in a very long time, or you're still
>>>hanging out with your high school friends! Parents get calls for their
>>>adult children fairly often, it's just not uncommon or for that matter
>>>a huge issue... unless you're trying to equate it with say....
>>>scientology. <grin> I think you're whining about this particular issue
>>>is just you attempting to get attention again. <sigh>
>>
>>You don't get it. My mom remembers most of my friends. It caught her off
>>guard. Case in point, she received a call about a year ago from my
>>friend in Washingtion State. He is a seismologist and wanted to come to
>>Jersey and get together with me. Bill asked how she was and how long
>>it's been since they've spoken (nearly 20 years!). She felt comfortable
>>giving him my number.
>
>
> LOL.... TMI, as far as I'm concerned. I have no desire to know your
> momma. <chuckle> The point is, it's not a moral issue to call someone's
> momma! At least not to those of us over 10 years old! If she's listed
> in the phone book, there is an expectation of being called by people
> you don't recognize from your sons high school year book! <grinning>
Rich is the ONLY person who did it with evil intent and an agenda.
>
>>>>He may be a little guy but sure has a lot of balls.
>>>>By his actions here, he shows the dark side of an "enlightened HI from
>>>>the Eckankar Organization" who uses smear tactics to discredit
>>>>detractors when he should be chanting HU on Ala Wai Harbor in Honolulu.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, that wouldn't even make a good refrigerator magnet, come on now!
>>>You were a member for less than 6 months and you are going to tell us
>>>what an HI should or shouldn't be? LOL......
>>
>>Don't you think I've learned a lot more here than being involved with
>>Eckankar? It's been a long time, sure, but to me it truly is a
>>fascinating subject aside from my short lived stint.
>
>
> Actually no. Now granted you've managed in the years of rage to
> identify with all the detractor accoutrements, and to memorize the
> rhetoric used by the anti-member clan, but that doesn't mean that you
> have a working knowledge of this path. I think that you've learned the
> rhetoric of hate and victimology and that's what you display here on a
> daily basis. That doesn't mean that this equates with a working
> knowledge of the path in any way. Ponder this: you become interested in
> a well known movie star. In light of that interest, you decide to read
> every bit of gossip written about that particular star in all the
> available press. Does that mean you know the star or who they are? A
> reasonable adult would say "no". What you've done is exchange
> experience for opinions. Other peoples opinions, to be exact. <shrug>
I have no rage cher. I do believe at some times I did exhibit shock
value in my posts, but I'm getting too old to get angry anymore. I can
still dish it out and take it. Why lookie here..I'm talking to a woman
who seems to have more enemies than I do on this group thanks to some
idiot who posts anonymously many vile and disgusting things about you. I
am not a fan of that sort of thing towards anyone.
>
>>>
>>>>Did you ever rent that room on Hawaii Kai Rich? The one where you needed
>>>>a roommate to pay the bills because you can't hold a steady job OR your
>>>>wife supports you? Are you happy with yourself that your wife is a
>>>>teacher and pays for your food and shelter and long boat rides out in
>>>>the Pacific? Tsk! Real men don't sell MLM Super Greens. They have steady
>>>>jobs and provide for themselves and the family.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL.... <shaking her head> You guys sound like the "desperate
>>>housewives"! Catty little bitches. <sigh>
>>
>>Hahahaha! That's what Sharon always tells me. Maybe you two are on the
>>same page for once. But ONLY once!
>
>
> Hard to be on the same page when you're in two different books! <wink>
> It's more likely that your jealousy is just that transparent. <shaking
> her head>
Funny you should say that. Twitchell was on the same page as Julian
Johnson many times!!!<GG>
Oogie
>
>
>>Oogie
>>
>>
>
cher
Level according to whose standards then? You removed all posts
surrounding this incident in the archives, and now you expect people to
accept this illusion? <sigh> Level is your desire to control the thing,
not you taking ownership of your own behavior that lead to other
peoples opinions of you. You don't get to control what others think or
how they act, only what you think and how you act! If you want a
different outcome, change your behavior.... don't whine and demand
everyone else change to fit your illusions. <smile>
>
> >
> >> As for calling your mom, well..... I guess you haven't
> >>
> >>>been invited to a class reunion in a very long time, or you're still
> >>>hanging out with your high school friends! Parents get calls for their
> >>>adult children fairly often, it's just not uncommon or for that matter
> >>>a huge issue... unless you're trying to equate it with say....
> >>>scientology. <grin> I think you're whining about this particular issue
> >>>is just you attempting to get attention again. <sigh>
> >>
> >>You don't get it. My mom remembers most of my friends. It caught her off
> >>guard. Case in point, she received a call about a year ago from my
> >>friend in Washingtion State. He is a seismologist and wanted to come to
> >>Jersey and get together with me. Bill asked how she was and how long
> >>it's been since they've spoken (nearly 20 years!). She felt comfortable
> >>giving him my number.
> >
> >
> > LOL.... TMI, as far as I'm concerned. I have no desire to know your
> > momma. <chuckle> The point is, it's not a moral issue to call someone's
> > momma! At least not to those of us over 10 years old! If she's listed
> > in the phone book, there is an expectation of being called by people
> > you don't recognize from your sons high school year book! <grinning>
>
> Rich is the ONLY person who did it with evil intent and an agenda.
LOL.... you mean Rich is the first person to actually make personal
contact with you after you've trolled a group merciliessly? <smile> I
can't imagine why you removed all your posts concerning this incident,
except that you wanted to make sure your lies would remain questionable
if you insisted enough. <chuckle> There's your evil intent, in case you
were wondering!!! LOL...
LOL... which works well for you, the man today whose changed! But in
reality, you're still attempting to hold Rich to a standard set that
many years ago and you won't let up on him! That tells me that you
haven't quite learned all this lesson has to offer! <chuckle> See,
you're real quick on the excuses for yourself, but seldom willing to
the other guy reasonable doubt on this group. When you can do that much
at least, then you might have the credibility to expect others to treat
you differently. Or as I used to tell my husband, after a certain
age.... you're just not cute enough to carry off those antics! It's sad
and it's true that cute rubs off with age. :-D
> who seems to have more enemies than I do on this group thanks to some
> idiot who posts anonymously many vile and disgusting things about you. I
> am not a fan of that sort of thing towards anyone.
LOL... yeah, right.... <smile> I haven't seen anything from that coward
that you and sharon haven't said to me over the years. Idiots are a
dime a dozen on usenet, no offense meant. :-D <shrug>
Oogie
I have no desire to control or manipulate people. I just let things flow
in their own direction. Peoples' opinion of me range from pure revenge
like Rich, to actual comraderie, love and affection from family, friends
and even an Eckist or two. Really, cher. You call Eckankar an evolving
religion with new ideas to fit the times. You keep talking about me from
years ago. All Things Must Pass!
Didn't you say one time that my posts are still there from responses? I
evoked reponse from everyone, pro and con!! made a lot of friends here too.
FYI, a lot of shit was wrongfully attributed
to me. Rich was sure I was Lalaleeloo and other trackless posters.
None of it true. It was an assumption I chuckled at.
A troll is someone who is clueless and just posts to get a charge.
I post because I find Eckankar quite intriguing and wonder why people
still follow the path. That's all.
I will talk to Rich any time. Frankly, I don't really care if people are
Eckists. I've had them lumped in with JWs Mormons and other cults, but
if you get something out of it, more power to you.
>
>
>>who seems to have more enemies than I do on this group thanks to some
>>idiot who posts anonymously many vile and disgusting things about you. I
>>am not a fan of that sort of thing towards anyone.
>
>
> LOL... yeah, right.... <smile> I haven't seen anything from that coward
> that you and sharon haven't said to me over the years. Idiots are a
> dime a dozen on usenet, no offense meant. :-D <shrug>
What? No comparison!!!!!Whoever has been limericking you the past two
months is disgusting.
I know in my heart of hearts that Sharon is a wonderful person. She's
had tough times in life but always seems to keep her chin up and carry
on.I admire her for that. She's a natural born survivor. She has a
wonderful family who love her and I look up to her for a boost a times.
She's got a heart of gold but everyone hates her here for leaving the flock.
Sharon
tianyue wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > > Sharon wrote:
>
>
> Well, according to Rich, Sharon wrote some of these things he's
> gathered together. The trouble with this sort of smear is that
> everything is taken out of context, so the meaning can be distorted.
> Rich loves this kind of tactic. Remove the context, then reassemble the
> words to smear another person. Very small of him, I'd say. When Rich
> can't prevail drawing upon sound reason and facts (something that
> happens to him often), he resorts to his favorite old standby: Slander
> and smear tactics. In this, he definitely stands alone in his element.
> Lets take a look at the little snippets of statements he's put
> together.
>
You know, I have a really hard time using Google. I find it
complicated, messy, and not at all user-friendly.
Anyway, I responded to Clergyboy Rich's "Sharon on Sharon" years ago.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/j5kgd
I really wonder what Rich thinks he's proving? If I had a problem
with anything I've written, I wouldn't have written it here to begin
with!
Anyway....a few more comments.
> > ECKANKAR STUDY
> >
> > I wasn't that involved with the formal organization for most of my
> > almost 15 years in it.
>
>
> This happens to be true of most eckists. In fact, Eckists like to point
> out that being active in the org isn't a requirement. People usually
> get promoted in the initiations despite lack of participation in the
> organization. Even Rich likes to point out that the organization isn't
> the real eckankar. So which is it, Rich?
>
>
This is an area where the cult is very deceptive. There aren't that
many cult centers, etc., now, and there were even fewer of them when I
joined. There were some bookstudies and a Satsang - but especially in
my earlier cult years, it wasn't really possible to go. I had small
children and worked, and sometimes I worked nights too. With travel
time, getting home at 10 pm on school & work nights didn't work. As my
youngest got older, I was able to get to more eckthings - like when
they started the "for the public" so-called "worship" services on
Sunday. I was *so* happy - I could "do" Sundays!!! Couldn't really
afford to travel to those big far-away seminars, so I never got to any
until my last year or two in the cult.
But I think a not-too-long-ago "discussion" with Cult High Initiate
Jackie says it all. Now, in all fairness to Jackie, she was being a
good "vahana" and telling people what the cult tells cult recruiters to
tell people, which is also emphasized in cultbooks, especially the ones
aimed at the "public". And, like a good eckie, she refuses to discuss
the secret members-only discourse stuff, which so clearly contradicts
their "public" propaganda.
We can see how Rich is just giving *more* proof that Jackie's statement
> > > Besides, being an ECKist does not mean you have to be active on the
> > > outer. IMO living the live of ECK is a personal one and can be done
> > > privately. Many people step aside from the outer organizational
> > > activities and just do their own "thing". That's ok too.
is misleading, at best. And the discourse I refer to is only *one*
example of the deceptive contradictions in the cult's so-called
"teachings".!
===================================
> > There wasn't a whole lot of actual "physical"
> > contact, and I didn't have a lot of interaction with other eckists,
> > and wasn't able to get to a lot of satsangs & study groups
> >
>
>
> Right. Well, again, it seems Rich has forgotten that even he has
> pointed out that one can "soul travel" to see the supposed masters.
> There are eckists in remote areas who never get to a meeting. Is Rich
> ridiculing them as well?
>
Of course not!! See, the only thing that matters is whether you have
a valid ID card, in which case whatever you do is just fine; or you
cheerfully burned your ID card, in which case whatever you have done,
do, or will do is KAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > <giggle> I used to feel guilty because when there was a choice
> > between an eckfunction and a Habitat thing, I skipped the eckstuff.
> >
> So, choosing a Habitat thing (Habitat for humanity??) is bad, choosing
> a potluck is good? What does this say about Rich's values? He could
> care less about those who are lacking in housing? What a red-neck!
>
To be honest, I rationalized a bit about it - like the eckbooks said,
the mere presence of an eckist in a group of Esques will help uplift
them. <gg>
=======
> > I was *so* happy when an HI from my old home traveled all the way here
> > to have Satsangs. I was really sad when I was thrown out because when
> > you're in Satsang, well...if you miss three, you're out.
> >
>
> Yes, I remember Sharon relating this story. She had trouble getting to
> the meetings for some very good reasons, as I recall. This reflects the
> old fashioned protestant work ethic in eckankar: Don't ever be late to
> a meeting, and miss three and you're out. Apparently prudish Rich takes
> offense at this. He thinks Sharon is very bad for missing meetings.
> Shame on you, Sharon! How could you??? You'll never get to heaven if
> you don't show up to a meeting! Meetings are so, so, so very important
> to Rich. So, are we to assume that Rich, as 'Mr. Organization Man,'
> never missed a meeting, or never once was late, and never once decided
> there was anything else that might be more pressing than a good
> organizational eck meeting? Kind of lets us all in on his real nature,
> eh? What a guy....
>
I wasn't well at the time. Actually, I knew the rules of Satsang from
the beginning because where I originally lived, I'd spoken to the HI
about my not being able to attend Satsangs regularly, and she said that
was okay, to come whenever I could. That Satsang was almost an hour's
drive, on schoolnights.
Now, this 2nd Satsang in the new area was quite a drive too - but my
son was a teenager, so we could stay up later. I was very surprised
and *hurt* when this HI called me and said sorry, I couldn't attend
anymore since I'd missed three. Attending "on the inner", which is
what I did when I couldn't go physically, didn't count - I asked her!!
Even though when the rest of the group had gone to a big seminar, we'd
set up a time in advance where I could "join" them "on the inner" and
the HI said yep, they "knew" I was there!! I told her that the last
HI & I had discussed it, and it was at the discretion of the HI to let
people come - like, an HI could say it was okay for an eckist to attend
even if they hadn't received that particular discourse series yet.
She told me she'd learned thru the years that it was better to just
obey the rules and not question them.
The thing is, my son was an eckist but didn't have his driver's
license. Because of illness, not only was *I* cut off from this
"sacred" gathering - and yeah, want some eckquotes on the sanctity of
Satsang? It's even "higher" than Catholic Mass!! <gg> - but my son
couldn't go either!!!!!
The moral of the story is - don't get sick if you're an eckist, unless
you're the LEM. <gg>
=============================================================
> > I didn't "practice" the "spiritual exercises" --
> > sitting down for 20 minutes a day, same time,
> > same place, and hypnotizing myself.
> >
>
>
> Not sure just what the context was here, but I knew many High Initiates
> who didn't do the exercises, and yet they advanced anyway. They simply
> kept quiet about lack of doing the exercises. It seems Rich hasn't
> heard of these guys. These same H.I.'s were asked for advice about
> which initiates should receive more initiations! And Klemp has said
> that in our modern era with so many time constraints, some people have
> to find a new way to contact the Eck, such as just chanting silently
> all day long. I guess this doesn't apply to Sharon, according to Mr.
> Organization Man. He loves to find fault, eh?
>
You know what? I was just looking for the original quote - and found
one, I responded in more detail to Rich's "Sharon on Sharon" back in
2001.
But on this one....you know, something always bothered me as an eckist,
about that "Friday fast" thing. The "mental"option, where you focused
on the "mahanta" all day. I couldn't figure that one out, because
that's what I strived to do *every* day!! Isn't that what it's all
about? To not just "practice" the spex, and do the hu same time, same
place, 20 minutes....or longer if you were having an "experience"?
To strive to *BE* the Hu?? And not just on Fridays?
If I felt like it, I originally figured that responding to this would
be a good opportunity to post more of those embarrassing eckquotes that
they just don't have an answer for, so they resort to "responding" with
*my* quotes!! <giggle>
Oh - just one comment, oh horrors - I've had sex without a license!!!!
Now, this is a hoot considering that Klemp Himself had to write a
special "wisdom note" telling cult members to cut out the bed-hopping
at seminars, because potential new recruits would get a bad impression.
It's easier to re-type than to search the archives & copy and paste -
but these are the same-old-same-old stories of my experiences in the
cult. Now, I was sort of shocked at Klemp's "Club Med" letter - not a
word about maybe all the bed-hopping wasn't a spiritually good thing,
just concern over the cult's public image.
After that, another eckist told me that should I ever go to a seminar,
to *never* room with one particular eckist, whose non-eckist husband
and children stayed home, since she screwed around a *lot*, and with
the phone ringing & knocks on the door I wouldn't get any sleep.
Well, some time later I asked this HI about it - and would you believe
she laughed about it and said yeah, sex is a great way to "balance"!
I wonder if her husband would agree? I guess Maybury's Laws don't
apply to marriage vows, especially with high initiates. And the girls
who work at cult headquarters!!
And...at one point I introduced a friend to "the teachings" and she
ended up dating an eckist, so I learned more about the bed-hopping -
just in that one small little group of eckists, ohmigod, that's how
diseases get spread around so easily!!!
Just one more comment.....
> ====================================================================
> > And as far as the "Light and Sound," well.. no
> > maybe I didn't "embrace and understand"
> >
>
>
> Well, it seems many don't have experiences in eckankar. Klemp says not
> to worry. But it seems Rich thinks Sharon is different than all the
> ones Klemp mentioned.
>
Oh, I had plenty of experiences - that's how I got mixed up in the cult
to begin with, because I didn't know what was going on. Unfortunately,
I fell for the cult's lying "ecksplanations".
Here's the original post with that quote: http://tinyurl.com/fd733
Well...right now I've spent more time here than I want to.
When I joined the cult, I had a very personal and beautiful
relationship with Spirit, which the cult told me was its "mahanta".
Well....the end result of my years in ekult was that I replaced
something very real with something very false. True light was dimmed
by the cult's dark shadow, and its phony "master".
You know, since Rich is so fond of quoting me, I think maybe I'll just
dig up more of my old posts and repost them!!! Gee...maybe I'll run
the whole "Letters to a Chela" series again!!!! Delphi can be a bit
hard to navigate.
I've always noticed, they seem to get a tad bit upset, and <snip> the
words of their "masters".
Gotta go!
Sharon
cher
you sure have spent a good deal of time on this newsgroup of late.
<chuckle> Rich posts these comments of yours to place you into context
in this group. There is no other reason to showcase your state of
consciousness beyond that. If you have to rationalize or justify those
statements, well.... that's your need, not anyone elses. <shrug> If
you're not ashamed of what you share here, then rationalizations and
justifications wouldn't be necessary. But we all know how you belabor
these issues when they come up, so that kind of clears up that side of
the mystery. <smile>
Sharon wrote:
> tianyue wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
> > > > Sharon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, according to Rich, Sharon wrote some of these things he's
> > gathered together. The trouble with this sort of smear is that
> > everything is taken out of context, so the meaning can be distorted.
> > Rich loves this kind of tactic. Remove the context, then reassemble the
> > words to smear another person. Very small of him, I'd say. When Rich
> > can't prevail drawing upon sound reason and facts (something that
> > happens to him often), he resorts to his favorite old standby: Slander
> > and smear tactics. In this, he definitely stands alone in his element.
> > Lets take a look at the little snippets of statements he's put
> > together.
> >
>
> You know, I have a really hard time using Google. I find it
> complicated, messy, and not at all user-friendly.
>
> Anyway, I responded to Clergyboy Rich's "Sharon on Sharon" years ago.
> See:
> http://tinyurl.com/j5kgd
>
> I really wonder what Rich thinks he's proving? If I had a problem
> with anything I've written, I wouldn't have written it here to begin
> with!
>
> Anyway....a few more comments.
<snip>
Rich
"Sharon" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I really wonder what Rich thinks he's proving?
Since I made no comments when I first quoted you, it's not me trying to
prove anything. Just helping newbies know the kind of person they might
be dealing with. I let your words speak for themselves without comment,
attributing anything to them, or telling others what you think, say, feel,
did, believe, ect. Something others detractors can't seem to do.
> If I had a problem with anything I've written, I wouldn't have written
> it here to begin with!
Thank you. I really do give you credit for owning up to what you write. I
can hardly think of a single apostate/detractor who does that even
somewhat honestly beside you. Kent is the antithesis of that. It might be
a good subject for you to explore in your apostates only groups.
I haven't read Kent's response and I'm not going to bother to now, and
then wade through all your response on top of it. Based on both of your
histories I'm sure there's way too much fiction, distortion and opinions
without much fact or accuracy. I've taken a lot of time in the past and
don't have interest or time to go over the same things again for the
umpteenth time. I'm content to let others sort out what's going on and
what the truth might be.
tianyue
Rich wrote:
> "Sharon" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I really wonder what Rich thinks he's proving?
>
> Since I made no comments when I first quoted you, it's not me trying to
> prove anything. Just helping newbies know the kind of person they might
> be dealing with. I let your words speak for themselves without comment,
> attributing anything to them, or telling others what you think, say, feel,
> did, believe, ect. Something others detractors can't seem to do.
>
>
> > If I had a problem with anything I've written, I wouldn't have written
> > it here to begin with!
>
> Thank you. I really do give you credit for owning up to what you write. I
> can hardly think of a single apostate/detractor who does that even
> somewhat honestly beside you. Kent is the antithesis of that. It might be
> a good subject for you to explore in your apostates only groups.
>
> I haven't read Kent's response and I'm not going to bother to now, and
> then wade through all your response on top of it. Based on both of your
> histories I'm sure there's way too much fiction, distortion and opinions
> without much fact or accuracy.
This is a classic response that you frequently indulge in, Rich. You
don't bother to read my post, but arrogantly reply to it anyway, as if
you know what I've said. That won't suffice, Rich. You've always
accused me of writing fiction, and yet you've never been able to prove
this charge. Care to try again?
> I've taken a lot of time in the past and
> don't have interest or time to go over the same things again for the
> umpteenth time. I'm content to let others sort out what's going on and
> what the truth might be.
You're content to let others sort things out? Excellent development in
your attitude. This is new for you, and I encourage you to continue
with this, for it should be a healthy change in your lifestyle. It will
do you good.
Tianyue
>
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken
> I know in my heart of hearts that Sharon is a wonderful
> person. She's had tough times in life but always seems to
> keep her chin up
> and carry on.I admire her for that. She's a natural born
> survivor.
> She has a wonderful family who love her and I look up to her
> for a boost a times. She's got a heart of gold but everyone
> hates her here for leaving the flock.
Nonsense. No one here hates her for leaving Eckankar. She's
earned any enmity she may find because of the way she's
treated others here.
--
Ken
fife
Henosis Sage
> See what I mean, Robert?
But that was good exercise to try.
I notice that the original post was not in any way critical or abusive of resident Ecksits or eckists in general.
By the reposses though you;d think they had ben accuse dof being islamic terorists or something.
Of course there is the "hangovers" of previous comments back and forth by individuals which alwasy gets in the way. But that isn;t the big issue here.
The big issue has always been that no one in authority has ever sincerely cleared the the issues mentioned in this first post of the thread here .. and all the other history matters and who what is eckankar & eck masters etc etc etc.
Of course people will defend what they like, enjoy, prefer, appreciate or value - whether that's a religion or not the same dramas usually apply. But that doesn't mean the queries are without merit to begin with.
The flip side of this very few if any "detractors" were ever able to explain their issues clearly either. as to "why it mattered" to them still now today. Things got lost in the emotions of it all. and got way too personal too fats. So even when they did put it clearly there was so much noise and crap in the way it was hard to hear them "clearly".
BUt at the ned of the day there was a an enormous amount for healthy discussions and some real HEALING for people be they pro or con eckankar. - which was merely a TRIGGER I suspect to work some shit out.
I'll add that Doug marman didn;t hel;p much either, as he like Harold never really had the full facts or truth of the matter .... he added some important "new slants" but he really missed the opportunity for those detractors finding out more of the truth about what Twitchell did, how he did and why he did .. even if questions still remained. Marman was no genuine "objective competent historical researcher" and that has more than anything allowed the issues to remain UNRESOLVED in the circles of people who once were interested/confused/concerned to this day .. now the word eckankar barely leaves marman's lips.
Rob still today after 13 years has the exact same problem he had at the beginning and which most people did who came through here .. he doesn't know the facts, and doesn't want to know the facts, he doesn;t understand what eckankar is why / how it works and has very little self awareness objectivity or expertise in the matter.
But still, ask him, he knows everything he needs to know already! Not only for himself but what everyone else needs too!!!! iow he has not learned even lesson:101 from being on a.r.e. ;-)