Both Sides of the Coin

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 24, 2004, 9:55:51 PM7/24/04

to

I was going to respond to Simon's Infinite Balls in a Box post, but my
response inspired such a different thought that I decided I would give it my
own narcissistic start.

Lots of things that are said about eckankar are probably accurate in
context. Context is the huge variable though isn't it. <Sigh>, my point
isn't to defend eckankar - least I be cast out of the tribe of detractors -
AND I sometimes get itchy when I read a fellow detractor's slam which is
based on generalization. You know, my "exit" point from eckankar was to
look at as many equations from both ends and in the middle instead of just
the eckankar aspect of any given equation. That said, to defame eckankar
through generalization might express a feeling fairly clearly, but it gives
blurry context.

Without further ado - I shall comment on your last thought, Simon."Eckankar
does not produce awakened individuals. It produced sleeping
individuals with a degree in waking up." I challenge your comment with
"water seeks it's own level". Is there ever an instance where someone's
gestalt is less than this bad eckankar we discuss with hindsight and
disillusionment? Is there ever a context where someone DOES evolve because
they got on the eck train? Now I think that many of the x-members of
eckankar might get together and muster a group think where we demonstrate WE
evolved. We woke up enough or got hurt enough or disillusioned enough to
get out - so we are "proof" that evolution based on that criteria occurs.

I bring this up because I grew up as an upper-lower class kid or maybe we
were lower-middle class - I don't know. We were so not middle middle that
when I asked my rich divorced mother if I could go to college (I was an
eckist when I asked her that) she said "Will see" (yeah right). I had
little training or encouragement or a model to travel the country, even the
continent. Prior to eckankar I was socially retarded, ostracized from all
but the most fringe groups of my high school context. Eckankar as a young
adult opened door after door after door. I traveled to Frisco, LA, Las
Vegas, Atlanta, DC, NYC, Toronto...and at some point eckankar started paying
for it in some ways. Now, granted, the price I might have paid through the
long haul isn't something I could sell easily on e-bay, but I gained hope
for a REAL life as a young man in eckankar.

You know the fairytale part about eckankar - a social retard suddenly
becoming this international player. It was better than fantasy and I lived
it for a while. My little black book of women, people in other countries
got bigger and bigger - the welcome (while I was a "good eckist") never
ended. I know the celebrity wasn't real - perhaps it's not even real for
hollywood celebrities, but while in that life, I worked at the UN Plaza,
served my country as a Paratrooper, brought some abused women out of their
abused contexts, discovered my adulthood in the fast lane contrasting my
sleepy belly-up town life that I would have faced without the experiences
eckankar offered me.

When I first stepped up to the group thing (major seminar in SF 1982 when
Darwin and Harry were both onstage)my intent was pure - serve the sugmad,
good of the whole, channel for the eck....I didn't see it as an opportunity
to "grow" in the direction I did grow. I was a classic Everything's Great
Now eckist - smiled all the time, felt accepted by these thousands of
strangers...blah blah blah. eckankar had relieved me from 17 years of an
inconsequetial life. How could you betray that rescue???

I was the manganomous winner who wanted all around him to witness his glow
and share that glow with others. What eckankar fed helped me disassociate
with my less than mediocre life and eventually derail it at a time where
hope for such a change was non existent.

My cultic lighthouse kept me on a track that would lead me to all sorts of
marvelous, life changing experiences. Some had their lion's share of pain
and misery, but it wasn't running in place in no-where Texas.

So, maybe my story wasn't most peoples story? Maybe I was young buddha
who's father kept the ugly world from his eyes, except in reverse, I saw the
dull ass world for the first 17 years, only to live with and meet and
associate with the beautiful people in my young adulthood. Of course
everyone I knew (eckistwise) in my immediate environment seemed to be having
the same experience. Narcissistic projection perhaps - who knows.

Can one of you eckists send me a membership request form - I want to...just
kidding.

Anyway, I'm not softening the blow of the ugly head of eckankar by any of
this - I just think that if we are going to break down the twisted elements,
then if there are resourceful experiences from that twisted path - we should
honor them too. If any of you detractors thought eckankar sucked from the
very moment you heard the word til now - then I never met any
eckist-x-eckists like that.

You know the painful part of shedding the eckankar-life is that I'm back to
pretty much where I started in some ways. I really am socially retarded.
What I mean to say is that the parts of myself that I hid from, abandoned
from ecking it up were here waiting for me when I re-associated with the
real world. I hadn't learned to manage the very things eckankar helped me
hide from, pretend away from. My challenge presently with my mostly
x-eckists in my life is that almost all the x-eckists in my life still
demonstrate alot of momentum from the cult, though they have given up their
cards. The worst of it of course is fairytale thinking. The Deus Ex
Machina lesson unlearned for them. They have hope some other magic, guru,
path, technique, teaching...zzzzzzzzz, whatever will give them that Booyah!
they are looking for. Paul would have referred to them as "seekers". I'm a
soughter (seeker in past tense).

So, I just thought that if we were going to spank the path for that which we
deplore - if any of us also celebrated being an eckist at some point in our
lives, we shouldn't pretend around that actuality either. I don't really
care if I read a generalization as long as it doesn't surgically remove the
other side of the coin.

So, Simon - did it suck from the very first breath til now, or did you
celebrate being an eckist at one time or another like I did? I spoke to an
x-cult member recently and this person shared they were never really a true
believer. I was. I had the lure so deep in me, I had to cut it out when I
began to drift from the teachings.

Enough for now.

Skardicus

cher

unread,

Jul 24, 2004, 10:15:57 PM7/24/04

to

You know, until this moment, I honestly didn't trust you. Now don't get
me wrong.. it's not a warm fuzzy thing here cause you said some nice
things about Eckankar.... but as I read your post, I suddenly remember
how I felt after my divorce so very long ago. You're working through the
process... and that I admire that. The hardest thing for anyone to do is
learn to be honest with themself. You appear to be doing just that. You
are a rare man!

Anyway... for whatever it's worth... I just wanted to stop and thank you
for being open and honest. I certainly can't take this away from you in
any measure by critique.. it's from your heart. And that I honor.

spark

unread,

Jul 25, 2004, 12:04:57 AM7/25/04

to

Thanks. Not for acknowledging the positive influence that your
involvement had on your life (emphasis: your involvement), but for the
courage it takes to risk 'falling' back to a 'place' that you describe
as "I'm back to pretty much where I started in some ways." Of course
you are not really where you started, but I hear you loud and clear.

And for your perfect description of the need to fill in the guru-tech
hole with the next thing that will distract from the horror of what we
must do (ok so I'm being over dramatic).

Why do you describe yourself as a true, true believer? I think most
would say that if you could get the lure out it was never in that deep.
I don't mean to discount what you say, I take it at face value, but I
think it would help others to know what you mean in a little more
detail. When and if you feel like it.

I sure got a jolt of who you are, it all suddenly fit together. But I
ain't the type of guy to blow your cover, just wonder if it is really
necessary or a part of the 'coming out' process. And again maybe I'm
way off, but I was around back then.

CSK

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 25, 2004, 8:57:49 AM7/25/04

to

"spark" <sp...@templeearth.org> wrote in message
news:JjGMc.36171$qa2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...

>
> Thanks. Not for acknowledging the positive influence that your
> involvement had on your life (emphasis: your involvement), but for the
> courage it takes to risk 'falling' back to a 'place' that you describe as
> "I'm back to pretty much where I started in some ways." Of course you are
> not really where you started, but I hear you loud and clear.
>
> And for your perfect description of the need to fill in the guru-tech hole
> with the next thing that will distract from the horror of what we must do
> (ok so I'm being over dramatic).

I don't think you are being dramatic at all - distraction is the word. If
you are a 60 year old man and you have 20 good years to work through the
"cover up" of your life to a place of more genuine being, then you require
20 more good years of distraction - that sounds dramatic and that's just the
way it is most often.

>
> Why do you describe yourself as a true, true believer? I think most would
> say that if you could get the lure out it was never in that deep.

Most true-believers or most player-haters? So to expand the metaphor - the
line broke. The lure was still in me but I got away because the connection
to the outer path literally broke.

> I don't mean to discount what you say, I take it at face value, but I
> think it would help others to know what you mean in a little more detail.
> When and if you feel like it.

I make very few choices these days based on some emotional impulse ("When
and if you feel like it"). I was a BIG feeler back in the day and it was
that very aspect of extreme emphasis upon feelings and feeling management
that intoxicated me into becoming more and more of an eckist and then
eventually experiencing more and more agony and running and hiding and
DISTRACTING on my tumble away from eckankar. I'm not terminator or
anything - I just take the priest's( in Romeo and Juliet) advice and love
moderately. The art of constantly pretending in order to manage a
generalized feeling or a set of specific feelings is a very exhausting and
crazymaking life process.

So, to provide this "help" for others to understand my once-upon-a-time true
believer state: I was looking for a "way out" or an "Answer" - in my
pre-teen/teen days before eckankar, I was the survivor of a physically
abusive father. I remember being 13 and praying to god one summer afternoon
before he got home from work - my life's purpose that summer was to be his
maid. I was tasked with cleaning the 2 story house we lived in and cutting
the lawn and raising my little brother each day and failure to meet his
standards meant that I would be beaten. That was my summer vacation that
year (I was 13 or 14). I got beat about 4 days out of 7 that summer. So I
prayed to God that one day and he came home and said "Great job", took me
and my little brother out to dinner. My false neuro-association was that
God had "saved" me. That relief in mind, I intended to repeat that rescue
from an abusive home constantly. I looked at God from every angle I could.
I even tried being a xian for about 6 weeks or but man I can't stand their
process or game AT ALL! As I said - I needed a way out or an Answer.

Someone close to me sent me some eck books later that year. My father for
whatever reason got home early that one day and found the box and opened it
and discovered the eck books. He forbid me to read them. I had to "steal"
an eck book in the morning before I went to school and after he went to work
and I read the books in between classes and before he would get home from
work, then return that given book to his bookshelf. I did this for 4
months. I think it very likely that my father forbid me to assimilate the
eck material was just like someone dropping a match on a bon fire. His very
"prevention" helped me frame that eckankar was a "way out" and an "Answer".
I understand now that reading the material, taking responsibility for my
interest in the cult and owning my need for change was in fact a form of
answer. Eckankar eventually led me to belong to something bigger and more
"powerful" than my father.

When I was a sophomore in H.S. I asked him if I could move out - we had
already had the confrontation about the eck books and he said "I don't care
what you do or where you go." I moved out that year and haven't been back
since.

You know the down side to self-help (my "way out" through eckankar would
qualify as that)is that information (reading books, listening to tapes)isn't
all you need to train to a point of excellence. Sometimes you need a guide
or a "master". By master I don't mean guru, but master in the context of
drivers-ed for teens isn't a drivers manual and a set of keys - it's a
responsibly driving adult that monitors your technique and progress. So a
young teen trying to exit a severely abusive home through self-help is a
road lined with many blind spots and pitfalls. At that time, my context
would have been greatly supported by someone who was a master in getting a
kid to a sane-safe place from a context like that, but that wasn't
available - I made do with what I had and of course that "material" would
steer me through the hoops of fire into true believerdom for many years to
come.

My faith was based on things like the titles of Paul's books - esp.
ECKANKAR: Key to Secret Worlds. Yeah baby - take me to secret worlds, the
not-secret world sucks and I WANT A WAY OUT! So my faith or true-believer
equation was based upon eckankar being an answer for my painful life and it
became that answer in surround sound and technicolor for years. Life just
kept getting better and better and I kept giving eckankar the credit. I was
a take-the-bullet-for-the-president type true believer. Whatever and
however and whenever I was required to demonstrate my belief - I would.

> I sure got a jolt of who you are, it all suddenly fit together. But I
> ain't the type of guy to blow your cover, just wonder if it is really
> necessary or a part of the 'coming out' process. And again maybe I'm way
> off, but I was around back then.

I don't need to "come out", Sparky. Your hunch is probably correct - I see
the words clearly that might have lifted the veil momentarily. If you wish
to write to me directly, my email address here is a real one. If not, I
accept that as well.

Skardicus

C. Plachowitz

unread,

Jul 25, 2004, 6:29:04 PM7/25/04

to

With all due respect no-name Skardicus, you seem to be competing with
the other detractors on who gets to play Tinkerbell. There was no
lure. Your lure was your creation and it hypnotized you.
Crocodile Plachowitz

> "Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<HqEMc.20820$WP1....@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
> .............................<snip>.................................

> Without further ado - I shall comment on your last thought, Simon."Eckankar
> does not produce awakened individuals. It produced sleeping

> individuals with a degree in waking up."...............<snip>............

spark

unread,

Jul 25, 2004, 8:29:58 PM7/25/04

to

The crocodile's words could be said of Jim Jone's and David Koresh's
followers as well, but most people are more charitable. These are
extreme examples that over dramatize to make a point: take someone who
either claims absolute power, or is referred to as having it by the
group's bible, and mix it up with people who want to believe in an
'Answer' that can be delivered in the form of a mystical 'transmission'
and it's a combustible 'solution.'

Ultimately we're all responsible for our thoughts, feelings, words, and
actions no if and or buts. However a compassionate heart realizes that
we get in over our heads sometimes. Less than scrupulous individuals and
distorted teachings can wreak havoc with a person's psyche. In ways that
are so subtle as to be invisible.

The line between heaven and hell is of our own making...? Yes and no.
Paradox? You betcha.

Ask anyone who's had their life saved by someone who didn't have to do a
whole lot, just make a call, make a stand, etc. and you'll hear someone
express gratitude for another being who didn't just say, "They got
themselves into this situation, it's up to them to get out of it."

The lure and the hook. I feel a Neil Young song coming on. I don't
think Skardicus is putting the responsibility on anyone else for his own
experience of Eckankar, yet any member worth the cost of their polyvinyl
membership card should stop and listen to what Skardicus and other have
to say and understand that in another six months or six years they could
be looking down the same 'barrel.' In these matters honesty is by far
the best way to go.

CSK

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 25, 2004, 9:10:31 PM7/25/04

to

I can tell you want me to talk dirty to you. <sigh>

So it wasn't my TV and the flashing light that hypnotized me? Or perhaps
man-wannabe Peter Pan? Just me...hmmm. And I thought I was suppose to
blame someone.

There was no lure - you aren't hypnotized, Plachowitz, you are spellbound.
I can appreciate a true believer defending eckankar - that makes sense.
What makes me want to talk dirty though is when an eckist refutes the
obvious.

So, let me get this straight, Dr. Plachowitz - eckankar has no facade, no
advertising, doesn't attempt to appeal to anyone anywhere in the world? No
lure at all? Not even a welcome mat?

Here it comes - the tourettes speweth! Bullshit! eckankar does intend to
appeal to people. It does have a marketing strategy. It does have PR
people and I could go on and on. It may not "lure" everyone, but it does
lure some. If you give lure (which I meant poetically in a fishing sense)a
negative connotation, then that's your spin. Lure is just a process. Lure
is just a word. Like Love or eck or Plachowitz. A hungry person is not
uncommon to be found lured into an aromatic restaurant. Neither the hungry
person or the aroma is evil - it just is. Some lures can be evil
(deceitful, misleading, what have you).

Some of the detractors here suggest that eckankar's front statements are
sometimes deceitful - "Highest path to God" - some don't see it as a lure as
much as false adverstisement. I am not even a novice in the world of
knowing anything about god so I cannot judge.

And just in case you live in a bubble or you are a self-fulfilling
hermaphordite, men do not equate being referred to as Tinkerbell with
respect. So I take it that your comment translate - for he that I have no
respect for...or for he who I intend to disrespect. My tourettes is
beginning to bubble again.

By the way, I have to ponder - almost all your posts are like one paragraph
long. Not that some people can't be concise and eloquent, but of course
that's not your gift demonstrated here - is English your second language or
something. Is one paragraph of your random blurting all you are good for in
English or are you more eloquent in another language and english blurt is
the best you can do in my first language?

I've heard Cher be referred to as a bot - but I highly doubt that. You on
the other hand may be some very creative beta-test bot.

Most bots that I've fronted out have had lots of script for denying
bot-hood. So what it is, bot, hermorphadite or condescending Biotch?

Respect comes from within. The law of the jungle is he (or she or in your
case perhaps shim) that respects himself the most is most respected. That
is a very polite way to say what I mean.

Thanks for the ride Plachowitz

Skardicus.

"C. Plachowitz" <cayi...@trust-me.com> wrote in message
news:d3144124.04072...@posting.google.com...

cher

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 12:14:57 PM7/26/04

to

Oh... I get it now! Wall yourself up in a cave or else you might end up
coming into contact with one of these characters? <LOL> See... if I make
the point that these beings are often the ones pretending to warn us
about such dangers, I usually end up with a lecture from lurk! Not that
the coin doesn't have two sides but that no one is supposed to see that
side of the smoke screen! After all, fear is such an easy emotion to
play on! I remember not long ago homeland security suggesting people
have plastic and duct tape on hand... and suddenly the stores were in a
panic because of the rush of people seeking plastic and duct tape.
Somewhere along the line, one has to own their own choices... whether
anyone else approves of those or not. Right? After all.... there are
cases where the anticult community have destroyed entire communities and
ruined countless lives with their urban legends and not once have they
taken responsibility for the damage they've done. Anything taken to an
extreme can constitute a danger.... common sense should always be a
factor in ones life. <wink>

Jadoo941

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 12:19:33 PM7/26/04

to

>Anything taken to an
>extreme can constitute a danger.... common sense should always be a
>factor in ones life. <wink>

wow. this from a follower of the mighty godman H. Klemp.

Physician, heal thyself.

cher

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 12:51:37 PM7/26/04

to

Yep... and up pops a prime example of what common sense shows us as a
freak show! <smile>

spark

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 2:18:15 PM7/26/04

to

Not sure my point was communicated as you appear to be responding to
some past issue with Lurk. Just had to do with accountability and
compassion.

I'm interested in your following statement:

"... there are cases where the anti cult community have destroyed entire

communities and ruined countless lives with their urban legends and not
once have they taken responsibility for the damage they've done."

Are you saying this is a regular occurrence or just a one-off thing?
Were you thinking of a specific case in point? I remember the piano
player (his name is escaping me right now) who's family felt that
Eckankar was brain washing him and they hired a deprogrammer to work
with him. But I don't think that ruined anyone's life. I talked to him
after that and he certainly wasn't ruined. I don't know of any other
anti-cult actions that ruined 'countless' lives or destroyed entire
communities. Maybe the sex yoga guy ragneesh or osho as I think he's
known now... but I don't really think you can lay that off on anti-cult
groups.

CSK

cher

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 3:27:54 PM7/26/04

to

spark wrote:
>
> Not sure my point was communicated as you appear to be responding to
> some past issue with Lurk. Just had to do with accountability and
> compassion.

Sure... whatever.... <smile> But I'm growing an insight here as to how
you work. LOL....

> I'm interested in your following statement:
>
> "... there are cases where the anti cult community have destroyed entire
> communities and ruined countless lives with their urban legends and not
> once have they taken responsibility for the damage they've done."
>
> Are you saying this is a regular occurrence or just a one-off thing?
> Were you thinking of a specific case in point? I remember the piano
> player (his name is escaping me right now) who's family felt that
> Eckankar was brain washing him and they hired a deprogrammer to work
> with him. But I don't think that ruined anyone's life. I talked to him
> after that and he certainly wasn't ruined. I don't know of any other
> anti-cult actions that ruined 'countless' lives or destroyed entire
> communities. Maybe the sex yoga guy ragneesh or osho as I think he's
> known now... but I don't really think you can lay that off on anti-cult
> groups.
>
> CSK

If you're honestly interested there's a book out called "Mystics and
Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History" by Philip
Jenkins. A good source for both sides of the story is presented in
"Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial
Field" edited by Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins. It's a series of
essays that offer good insight into the research being done on the issue
and those who are at the table. Another good source for information is
"The Seven Sins of Memory" by Daniel L. Schacter.

There's more to this story.... but I bet you can research it yourself,
if you're interested. <smile>

C. Plachowitz

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 5:26:35 PM7/26/04

to

"All you need is trust... and a little bit of pixie dust!" --Peter Pan
Wasn't challenging your masculinity, no-name Skardicus, just your
credibility. It was not my intent to find a nerve. I regard Tinkerbell
as a protector of truth. Hope you are feeling better.
Plachowitz

> "Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<bSYMc.26979
> $pR5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...

> I can tell you want me to talk dirty to you. <sigh>

C. Plachowitz

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 8:23:17 PM7/26/04

to

You are sucking your own tit like an unweaned cat, no-name Skardicus.
It is not ECKANKAR's fault you were using it for a crutch. Plachowitz

> "Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message

> news:<h7OMc.39199$qa2....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> ........................<snip>...................................

> I make very few choices these days based on some emotional impulse ("When
> and if you feel like it"). I was a BIG feeler back in the day and it was
> that very aspect of extreme emphasis upon feelings and feeling management
> that intoxicated me into becoming more and more of an eckist and then
> eventually experiencing more and more agony and running and hiding and

> DISTRACTING on my tumble away from eckankar. ...............<snip>....................................................

> I was the survivor of a physically

> abusive father. ........................<snip>.........................

>
> Someone close to me sent me some eck books later that year.

> You know the down side to self-help (my "way out" through eckankar would
> qualify as that)is that information (reading books, listening to tapes)isn't
> all you need to train to a point of excellence. Sometimes you need a guide
> or a "master".

> Skardicus

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 9:48:57 PM7/26/04

to

"C. Plachowitz" <cayi...@trust-me.com> wrote in message
news:d3144124.04072...@posting.google.com...

> You are sucking your own tit like an unweaned cat, no-name Skardicus.
> It is not ECKANKAR's fault you were using it for a crutch. Plachowitz

I'm alergic to cats and since my tit is all that I can reach, would you help
me with the rest? I didn't use it like a crutch, I used it like a kingdom.
I was the heir apparent. Skanks like you just lined the hallways for a
glimpse of the sound and light in a stable and victimless vessel. Perhaps
by eckankar standards, I was "aiming" at the "wrong" thing - power. I was
powerful, nonetheless. I never flinched from the power, never surrendered
the burden of my duty to eckankar to someone else. I basked in the warm
glow of my success and suffered alone in my failures. My commitment was so
complete I didn't know how to ask for help - this was pointed out to me much
later.

I disregarded all the cowardly talk among the worshipers of fear while I
still led. I see now that fear-as-a-construct was coming down from on high.
My training had me ignoring all that - it wasn't relevant to Love, Service
or my vigilance in the commitement I was given by Harry.

You really must like my tourettes, Plachowitz - your demonstration in your
posts of the principles of eck (unless Harry rewrote them all) is less than
zero. Everything you percieve, including skardicus the poster exists within
you FIRST. Read the Tiger's Fang a few more times and grok the
microcosm-macrocosm equation a little more clearly.

I feel sorry for you, Plachowitz, that you see each poster's picture as he
or she paints it in the most rudimentary and coursest of visions. Your
anger doesn't seem to have a source or purpose - it just is. I can get
really riled up with the true-believers and sometimes they have me dead to
the rights - finding my argument being unsound or irrelevant - I'm human and
I fuck up at least once a month. But your mindless soundbites form a
definitive barrier between the eckist that takes a position and demonstrates
the interconnectivity of their mind maps against the detractor waves AND the
impulsive eckist that somehow grasps what's being spoken of means eckankar
is bad and they know differently so they just sling something into the the
group to show "they" can defend TOO!

It's like happy hour with you. You troll with a one paragraph minimum and
since it's all-you-can-troll night, one paragraph here and there is all you
are good for.

I will say though in the most complimentary tone I can muster for you, poor
thang, that I'm more grateful when you express your own thought, however
perfect or fucktarded it sounds as opposed to quoting stuff as if we all
don't have enough pre-packed lines to read already.

By the way, angry chicks turn me own, send me a picture.

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 10:02:27 PM7/26/04

to

"C. Plachowitz" <cayi...@trust-me.com> wrote in message
news:d3144124.04072...@posting.google.com...

> "All you need is trust... and a little bit of pixie dust!" --Peter Pan
> Wasn't challenging your masculinity, no-name Skardicus, just your
> credibility. It was not my intent to find a nerve. I regard Tinkerbell
> as a protector of truth. Hope you are feeling better.

I seldom feel much at all. Any feeling is better than none.

So what about my postings (in general or get specific if you want) are
incredible? Is it that I don't have a "true" name that you or your
"friends" think I mislead, post falsely, exaggerate beyond acceptable
bounds? I would advise you and the other alias-haters to zoom in a bit. If
your criteria for credibility is carved too deeply in stone, perhaps you
will filter out an honest person, full of pain, trying to connect to some
end of the eckankar equation for closure, for appreciation, for knowing
self.

Maybe your fear has you filter without discrimination - why take a chance on
someone new?

Skardicus

Jadoo941

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 11:00:06 PM7/26/04

to

>Yep... and up pops a prime example of what common sense shows us as a
>freak show! <smile>

Yes, you did pop up right on cue! <schmile>

cher

unread,

Jul 26, 2004, 11:32:36 PM7/26/04

to

Yeah, with the punch line before you got to it! <chuckle> So tell me....
are you always this far behind the curve?

arelurker

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 8:19:32 AM7/27/04

to

"C. Plachowitz" wrote:
>
> You are sucking your own tit like an unweaned cat, no-name Skardicus.
> It is not ECKANKAR's fault you were using it for a crutch. Plachowitz

Skardicus takes the opportunity to express himself authentically and
reveal the pain in his life and how eckankar was a refuge from such pain
and all you care about is how it will make eckankar look. This tells me
you're identified to inhuman extents. I'd guess you have equal amounts
of pain lurking under the surface that makes you say nasty stuff when
your lie is threatened.

Lurk

cher

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 10:34:42 AM7/27/04

to

Sigmund Fraud practicing psychobabble without a license again! <lol>

C. Plachowitz

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 3:54:21 PM7/27/04

to

There is no need to fear love. Your fear and your hiding from it is
voluntary. I apologize for being overly incredulous at you feeling so
sorry for yourself. Step out of the shadows, 'Deep Throat' Skardicus,
and take responsibility for who and what you have become. I, frankly,
care nothing for your past in ECKANKAR. You are on your own path as
you should be. Plachowtiz

> "Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<TIiNc.33884
> $pR5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...

Bee

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 6:56:09 PM7/27/04

to

"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:HqEMc.20820$WP1....@fe1.texas.rr.com...

I like and appreciate what you have shared here ...

However .. it sounds like what you are saying is that you came to a point
of the true you you that you started with in the beginning, you share that
you stood behind the persona of the Eck teaching, it took you places like
you would never of dreamed of .. Am I right?

If so, would it not mean that you arrived at the point in your life where
your "hiiden silence box" is?/ This means the hidden patterns that may have
got passed onto you by your mother etc and that snowballed into personality
lines of thought that made you feel unworthy. If so .. I thought that this
is what I have come into within MY life and it is the opposite, It is
absorbing the Eck teaching of which is helping me to be freer than before
without it being a "fantasy" as you put it.

I do understand what you are saying as I have seen some that are living life
as an Eckist as just that.

At least you are being honest about it ...

Love

bee

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 7:26:39 PM7/27/04

to

"C. Plachowitz" <cayi...@trust-me.com> wrote in message

news:d3144124.0407...@posting.google.com...

> There is no need to fear love. Your fear and your hiding from it is
> voluntary. I apologize for being overly incredulous at you feeling so
> sorry for yourself. Step out of the shadows, 'Deep Throat' Skardicus,
> and take responsibility for who and what you have become. I, frankly,
> care nothing for your past in ECKANKAR. You are on your own path as
> you should be. Plachowtiz

"The truth of the spoon is...there is no spoon." According to the teachings
of the eck - eckankar is merely one of an infinite forms of Maya's magic.
eckankar too is an illusion. Love, my Dear One is perhaps the greatest
illusion. I love you, Plachowitz. Do you see the truth in my words? Love
is the complete delusions of hope. Hope is the psychological root of all
fairytale thinking. I hope that you love me too, Plachowitz.

Skardicus

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 7:43:39 PM7/27/04

to

I appreciate your post...

"Bee" <waf...@rubarb.com> wrote in message
news:4106...@news1.veridas.net...

Be it a small child taking it's first steps in this world, or a 35 year old
man who has lost a leg and has to learn to walk again with a prosthesis -
each learns to walk through training and practice. The same can be said
about emotionally or mentally injured people. Philosophy is an invisible
garmet that each person pretends to wear in order to come to terms with the
real self. The wearing of the invisible garmet does not change the reality
of the injury or sad limit of an individual, it simply distracts the injured
from recovery, training and practice with the new context.

Fantasy as I define it is any mental process regarding a real context or
situation that does not promote recovery, training or practice (and
eventually mastery). The man with low self-esteem or hang-ups with women
can Hu til he's blue (don't make that a song title without giving me
credit)but the chanting of the word is more akin to an ocd behavior than a
process that allows recovery, training and practice in dealing with his self
and "working" through his hangups.

Putting your attention on the blue light when social anxiety kicks in in the
form of a panic attack may distract you from the panic, but if you are still
putting your attention on the blue light 20 years later and having panic
attacks, I conclude that the attention shift does not encourage recovery,
training, practice and mastery. Fantasy thinking is like a note from your
parents to stay home from school. It alieviates your responsibility from
participating in your own life, even to the point of appreciating what's
"really" going on. When we fall in love with our distractions through sheer
redundancy with our piss-poor life pattern, our distractions are our life
patterns. How does one remember the grander self of
honest-curious-courageous exploration of the unknown when it has been walled
in by the safe-thinking, safe-feeling, safe-living coward we have become in
order to be "safe".

>
> I do understand what you are saying as I have seen some that are living
> life
> as an Eckist as just that.
>
> At least you are being honest about it ...
>
> Love
>
> bee

Thanks Bee for the post.

Skardicus

Al Radzik

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 8:40:48 PM7/27/04

to

I picture this woman, cher, with cellulite all over her ass that looks
like she's been sitting in a gravel driveway for 3 days munching on
ketchup flavored potato chips and salsa with the TV blasting away in the
background as she pounds out her sexual frustrations to a newsgroup
where either side really gives a shit if she walks around the
neighborhood in a nightgown at midnight looking for UFOs in her backyard
while her children, neighbors, and local police write her off as a
fruitcake who refuses to take her medication.

Why don't ya go to Roxbury and find yourself a couple of studs, cher.

Alf

bluestar

unread,

Jul 27, 2004, 8:57:38 PM7/27/04

to

Al Radzik <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I picture this woman, cher, with cellulite all over her ass that looks
>like she's been sitting in a gravel driveway for 3 days munching on
>ketchup flavored potato chips and salsa with the TV blasting away in the

My view may have changed his perception, because as I said, Eckankar was
never designed to solve life issues for people. It was designed as an
orientation system so people CAN solve their life issues better. And if the
orientation goes to a Men's Group that's where you go.

To even consider that a spiritual teaching will solve your own issues is
wrong, as I see it. We solve our issues, the tools of a teaching help us get
to the point where we can solve our issues. As Bee said, you are getting to
a point where you are becoming able to solve issues... If you had been using
Eckankar as a crutch, well meaning or otherwise, then the only solution
spiritually is to kick out the cruch and learn to walk.

That's what Bee recons, anyway.

However, whatever way we come to the crutchless society within ourselves,
it's all good.

Love

Michael

"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:LMBNc.58114$qa2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Bee

unread,

Jul 30, 2004, 2:37:59 AM7/30/04

to

Michael .. That is how I see it ... Nothing wrong with that ...

Love

bee
"Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote in message
news:4109...@news1.veridas.net...

simon

unread,

Jul 30, 2004, 10:52:54 PM7/30/04

to

Yes I celebrated being an Eckist. I was totally into it. I can
probably defend it very well too. I had all kinds of OBE's. Very few
with Eck Masters.
I have more OBE's now than I did in the past. My view of what that is
has changed. All the empowering bullshit that Eckankar said about
experiences is just that. Bullshit. Shure they are overwhelming and
the first taught is to think that you are special and God blah blah.
Eckankar hijacks these natural experiences, controls individuals
through them, and laughs all the way to the bank.

Jadoo941

unread,

Jul 31, 2004, 1:59:58 AM7/31/04

to

You got it Leroy.

Put another way in the Tibetan Book of the Dead:

"The Bible of the Christians, like the Koran of the Moslems (or the shariyat ki
sugmud for that matter), 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, 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 ecstasty, is purely illusionary, being based
upon sangsaric 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 or embodiment."

Ken

unread,

Jul 31, 2004, 1:33:22 PM7/31/04

to

"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote ...

Well, that's the goal. Nirvana, the dropping of all illusion, seeing truly.
But let's put the criteria that you apply to Eckankar to Buddhism. How
many Bodhisattvas do you see wandering around. One? Two? Any?
The question the seeker should have is, how effective is the teaching.
The question down the road after applying the teachings in his or her
own life should be, how effective has this teaching been for me? That's
what really counts isn't it? That's where the rubber meets the road.

unread,

Aug 2, 2004, 2:59:13 PM8/2/04

to

"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...

Light leaves the Sun. It travels billions of miles across nearly empty
space until it finds a small moon which orbits a slightly larger but very
dark planet. The particles / waves of light illuminate the surface of this
dark planet and it's moon just a tiny bit more than if the Sun weren't
there at all.

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 8:45:28 AM8/3/04

to

Ken wrote:
>
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> >
> > arelurker wrote:
> > >
> > > Methinks you are trying to hard.
> > >
> > > Part of the lure of cultic groups is that people renounce their former
> > > life and really feel like they are on the road to transforming
> > > themselves. I'm sure eckists make changes in their lives to whatever
> > > they consider better. However, on the whole, I'd say the changes eckists
> > > talk about amongst themselves are as mostly and result of the spiritual
> > > personas they have developed that don't have much basis in reality. It's
> > > that psychological dissonance thing....where eckists think they are one
> > > way and in reality they are the opposite. That's why I find such
> > > proclamations of changes and effectiveness suspect...it could be part of
> > > the cultic delusion.
> > >
> > > Lurk
> >
> > Well I'm not strong enough to pass this one up. <grin> The only cultic
> > delusion I know of to date is the dogma you declare is truth about this
> > path, lurk. Take a chance on life and learn about the truth of opinions
> > for a change. Save the world... one word at a time. :-)
>
> That whooshing sound was the point of my little story flying right over the
> head of our dear Lurkie.

More like my eyes glazed over and I started thinking about what I should
have for dinner as I read your bullshit.

> Oh Lurk, of COURSE the personas have little
> basis in reality.

Yes the personas Harold builds up are the very thing that convinces
eckists that that are achieving. Why look at yourself....you've been
running in place for seven years on this newsgroup. <g>

Lurk

Ken

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 9:24:22 AM8/3/04

to

"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...

Well, there's always hope.

Ken

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 9:31:44 AM8/3/04

to

"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...

You can't seem to face the fact .... :-) There's no one else building up
personas other than the person his(or her)ownself. There's no one else to
blame. It's all you.

cher

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 10:47:18 AM8/3/04

to

You know lurk, someday you're going to smoother in that little box you
live in. <smile>

cher

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 10:51:32 AM8/3/04

to

I don't know... this box seems to have a lid on it 24/7! <smile>

arelurker

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 4:24:02 PM8/3/04

to

Really, your saying Harold has no influence on students by building up
their eckists personas by outlining what the ideals eckist should be
like? Your position is preposterous and sounds like the old stand by
argument many cultist use: If something positive happens to the student
it is the teacher's influence, but if something negative happens, then
it is not the teacher's influence. This too is part of the conditioning
in eckankar that basically allow Harold to be right 24/7. But that shit
don't fly here where people questions. Good try. Got any more
"insightful" comments you'd like to share?

Lurk

Ken

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 7:10:24 PM8/3/04

to

"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
> Ken wrote:
> >

> > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...

> > >
> > > Yes the personas Harold builds up are the very thing that convinces
> > > eckists that that are achieving. Why look at yourself....you've been
> > > running in place for seven years on this newsgroup. <g>
> >
> > You can't seem to face the fact .... :-) There's no one else building up
> > personas other than the person his(or her)ownself. There's no one else to
> > blame. It's all you.
>
> Really, your saying Harold has no influence on students by building up
> their eckists personas by outlining what the ideals eckist should be
> like? Your position is preposterous and sounds like the old stand by
> argument many cultist use: If something positive happens to the student
> it is the teacher's influence, but if something negative happens, then
> it is not the teacher's influence. This too is part of the conditioning
> in eckankar that basically allow Harold to be right 24/7. But that shit
> don't fly here where people questions. Good try. Got any more
> "insightful" comments you'd like to share?

Yes. You are responsible for everything that comes into your life.

Jadoo941

unread,

Aug 3, 2004, 9:12:09 PM8/3/04

to

>Really, your saying Harold has no influence on students by building up
>> their eckists personas by outlining what the ideals eckist should be
>> like? Your position is preposterous and sounds like the old stand by
>> argument many cultist use: If something positive happens to the student
>> it is the teacher's influence, but if something negative happens, then
>> it is not the teacher's influence. This too is part of the conditioning
>> in eckankar that basically allow Harold to be right 24/7. But that shit
>> don't fly here where people questions. Good try. Got any more
>> "insightful" comments you'd like to share?
>
>
>Yes. You are responsible for everything that comes into your life.

So you're responsible for me being in your life? Nice. Now fuck off.

arelurker

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 8:51:00 AM8/4/04

to

In a sense you are correct...

You are responsible to choose to stay with an unbalance teacher that
functionally does little more than pump your ego up with a bunch of
idealistic bullshit.

You are responsible to choose to accept Harold's idealistic and
absolutist bullshit.

You are responsible for choosing to stay with an unbalanced teacher who
has a vested interest in seeing eckists as some sort of super race of
people and therefore inflates and fabricates the "progress" he sees in
his students.

You are responsible for choosing to accept the fantasy progress of your
master that is little more than an extensive ego trip.

And so on.

Lurk

Jadoo941

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 12:20:04 PM8/4/04

to

Not a goal. What will be was then, is now. When you sleep do you have
the goal to wake up? No, you just wake up when you are done sleeping.

>But let's put the criteria that you apply to Eckankar to Buddhism. How
>many Bodhisattvas do you see wandering around. One? Two? Any?

Silly goose. Bodhisattvas do not advertise such as your pretend godman
seeking his living from the fruits of his poor followers. They have no, none,
zero need for recognition or adulation unlike you-know-who.

>The question the seeker should have is, how effective is the teaching.
>The question down the road after applying the teachings in his or her
>own life should be, how effective has this teaching been for me? That's
>what really counts isn't it? That's where the rubber meets the road.

You take my breath to have the arrogance to compare the time honored and
revered methods of Buddhism to that indulgent fairytale called eckankar.
Please. YOU, none of us, is qualified to judge how effective our practice is.
I'll go further. If you practice with attachment to results instead of complete
surrender to IT to do with you as IT will, it leads only to negativity, as so
evident here on this group. Would you send your child to any of these eckists
for spiritual training? The very thought is horrorifying is it not? Would you
want
you child to turn out like Chernobyl? I rest my case.

cher

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 12:56:49 PM8/4/04

to

BRRRRRRRING... the sound of the alarm going off! <smile>

> >But let's put the criteria that you apply to Eckankar to Buddhism. How
> >many Bodhisattvas do you see wandering around. One? Two? Any?
>
> Silly goose. Bodhisattvas do not advertise such as your pretend godman
> seeking his living from the fruits of his poor followers. They have no, none,
> zero need for recognition or adulation unlike you-know-who.

Silly goose? Okay, so you spend all this time cursing at people on this
ng and suddenly you sound like shirley temple? <sigh> So it's left to
the novices to do negative comparisons with their teachings and paths
that have no affiliation with them? I've read a good deal about
Buddhism, but never seen any reference to the practice of attacking
other paths as a means of enlightenment. Perhaps you could share a
passage with us or a link to this form of practice?

So you're basically saying then that you do not know of any Bodhisattvas
in your teachings to date? Not one? No links or references?

> >The question the seeker should have is, how effective is the teaching.
> >The question down the road after applying the teachings in his or her
> >own life should be, how effective has this teaching been for me? That's
> >what really counts isn't it? That's where the rubber meets the road.
>
> You take my breath to have the arrogance to compare the time honored and
> revered methods of Buddhism to that indulgent fairytale called eckankar.
> Please. YOU, none of us, is qualified to judge how effective our practice is.

Excuse me? Who is it that invited the comparison as the root cause here?
Hmmm? Are you saying that you're allowed to make comparisons but when
the thought is carried into discussion it suddenly turns into a
negative? By what measure? It can't be Buddhism as you see it, because
you're mighty quick on that trigger when it comes to judging Eckankar.
Now I find that rather interesting.

> I'll go further. If you practice with attachment to results instead of complete
> surrender to IT to do with you as IT will, it leads only to negativity, as so
> evident here on this group. Would you send your child to any of these eckists
> for spiritual training? The very thought is horrorifying is it not? Would you
> want you child to turn out like Chernobyl? I rest my case.

Well I can speak for Chernobyl, and frankly I don't see her going to any
Buddhist groups and attacking them personally or making sleezy sexual
remarks about them and their leaders. Intil this moment, I'm pretty
certain that Chernobyl has held the Buddhist path in high regard and
respect! She's not the sort of person to judge the path by one silly
member though. <smile> In fact, this pretty obvious negative personal
attack from you kind of nullifies your whole premise, doesn't it? Seems
like you could use some down time to meditate on the meaning of
negativity and what the source of it might be. Is it to practice the
teachings of Buddha or is it to attack people from another path that
have no association with you in daily life?

cher

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 2:00:56 PM8/4/04

to

K Addleman wrote:
>
> "Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040804122004...@mb-m11.aol.com...

> Interesting thought, Jadoo. No, I can't imagine putting a child in the hands
> of any Eckist posting on a.r.e. The dogma would be too damaging to a child.
> The twisted values, the bizarre logic, the circular thinking, the
> fundamentalist elitism, all would be too horrifying to subject a child to.
> This thought had never occured to me, but it is a useful measure of a
> teaching or subculture. It says it all.
>
> Leaf
The feeling is mutual, kent. I certainly wouldn't expose any child to
the fundamentlist fanatical insanity of anticult material, especially
those who are addicted to the self help groups. Even the APA refuses to
acknowledge the work of the anticult groups. In fact... did you know
that both the Merck Manual and DSM-IV have removed all references to
"cult mind control" from their highly recognized publications? Can you
imagine implanting such teachings as this in a childs mind only to
discover they're based on social hysteria and misrepresentation?

Michael Wallace

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 8:12:26 PM8/4/04

to

Bee here ..... on Michael's Jadoo is a waste of breathe cher .....
or maybe not .. It/she/ he may be suffering BPD ... <>

That would explain all the abuse ...

Love

b
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:411113E0...@worldnet.att.net...

Ken

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 8:28:24 PM8/4/04

to

You agree that each individual is responsible for all that comes into his
or her life. So Lurk, maybe it's time for you to stop blaming Harold for
all of your problems with Eckankar.

Al Radzik

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 8:42:00 PM8/4/04

to

Ken wrote:

> Yes. You are responsible for everything that comes into your life.

You are the dumbest fuck for making a statement like this.
Ken, relax, take stock of yourself, and think about what you are saying
before you post this kind of bullshit.
Is this a Haroldism? I'd like to see where you came up with this dumb
fucking proclamation of total ignorance.

Alf

Michael Wallace

unread,

Aug 4, 2004, 8:58:15 PM8/4/04

to

"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
news:AXUPc.170441$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Which is EXACTLY why I use Block Sender with Lurk-ji <G>

Just a question of available time, Lurk... Nothing personal. I suspect you
are actually quite a decent person when not relating to a.r.e.

Love

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 9:32:13 AM8/5/04

to

Ha! What's the matter, are you afraid to look at the fact that the source
of all of your discontent with Eckankar is you?

Ken

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 9:32:14 AM8/5/04

to

"Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote ...

Are you afraid to face the possibility that it's all just you?

Ken

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 9:32:15 AM8/5/04

to

"Michael Wallace" <yoyoe...@waffle.com.au> wrote ...
>
Ken:

> >
> > Yes. You are responsible for everything that comes into your life.
>
> Which is EXACTLY why I use Block Sender with Lurk-ji <G>
>
> Just a question of available time, Lurk... Nothing personal. I suspect you
> are actually quite a decent person when not relating to a.r.e.

Yes I understand completely. When I wasn't into reading Lurk's tripe, I'd
just skip over all of the responses to him. This is just something I need to
do for right now.

Ken

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 9:32:16 AM8/5/04

to

"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
Ken:

> >Well, that's the goal. Nirvana, the dropping of all illusion, seeing truly.
>
> Not a goal. What will be was then, is now. When you sleep do you have
> the goal to wake up? No, you just wake up when you are done sleeping.

Sure, of course. No need to get caught up in semantics. "Goal" in this sense isn't something that
one strives for, but it is welcomed.

>
> >But let's put the criteria that you apply to Eckankar to Buddhism. How
> >many Bodhisattvas do you see wandering around. One? Two? Any?
>
> Silly goose. Bodhisattvas do not advertise such as your pretend godman
> seeking his living from the fruits of his poor followers. They have no, none,
> zero need for recognition or adulation unlike you-know-who.

Are you sure that there's a need for recognition by the Eck masters?
Now I bet you at this point are saying, "why else would they have
things set up the way they do, if it wasn't for a desire for recognition?"

>
> >The question the seeker should have is, how effective is the teaching.
> >The question down the road after applying the teachings in his or her
> >own life should be, how effective has this teaching been for me? That's
> >what really counts isn't it? That's where the rubber meets the road.
>
> You take my breath to have the arrogance to compare the time honored and
> revered methods of Buddhism to that indulgent fairytale called eckankar.
> Please.

Oh, "please" yourself! "Revered methods of Buddhism?" Cut me a
break. If Buddha was to meet you on the road he'd kick your fuzzy
headed little ass.

> YOU, none of us, is qualified to judge how effective our practice is.

Each is required to judge his own life. Each is the master of his own
ship. We may be at the mercy of the wind and the tides to a degree,
but there is no one else who can choose for us which direction to
travel.

> I'll go further. If you practice with attachment to results instead of complete
> surrender to IT to do with you as IT will, it leads only to negativity, as so
> evident here on this group. Would you send your child to any of these eckists
> for spiritual training? The very thought is horrorifying is it not? Would you
> want you child to turn out like Chernobyl? I rest my case.

And once again, here you are slipping back into ad hominem rhetoric.
What's that you're saying about attachment to result and negativity?

arelurker

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 10:26:03 AM8/5/04

to

No, I'll tell you exactly why I have trouble with Harold calling
plagiarism compiling. It is lying to students. Lying like that to
students who trust you is abusive. I didn't create Harold's lying,
Harold created Harold's lying. I can choose how to react to it. I choose
to call attention to it because it is pivatol because the implications
are deep. Some people like yourself stay in an abusive situation
without questioning it and make up all kinds of stories to make the
abuse not abuse.

Is calling attention to Harold's lying discontent? There is one side of
me that says Harold should not be abusing his students that way he does,
that a spiritual master who claims to have the highest consciousness in
the world shouldn't be lying to his students. There is another side of
me that says it is perfect that Harold abuses his students the way he
does. Given his level of self honesty and cultic thinking I should
expect anything less.

Can you see how your defense of Harold using the old "you create your
reality" is childish?

Lurk

cher

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 11:34:20 AM8/5/04

to

There are only two thoughts (boiled down) that can occur when an eckist is
faced with the evidence of Paul's plagerism - 1)reverse spin - self-stories
that neutralize the threat of such evidence OR 2)Re-evaluation of the
leader(s) of your path and perhaps the path itself.

If Harry misrepresented as Lurk suggests, then we have our two mental
choices above. Needs - your personal needs define what is relevant and what
is irrelevant. But what you "need" doesn't necessarily define the scope of
what the hell is really going on, it just defines the port of the brain
drain that you are plugged into.

It makes no difference
> and has nothing to do with the value of the teaching, nor the intentions
> of the teacher.

The above of course is a fine example of a self-story to neutralize.

>
> There is little value in pointing out the irrelvent.

But there is great value in labeling something irrelevant if you cannot
afford to look at it's relevance.

Skardicus

Michael Wallace

unread,

Aug 5, 2004, 10:31:03 PM8/5/04

to

"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message

news:iwAQc.394017$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Hey look... Another peak into what my block sender list saves me from
reading!! <G>

It's great Ken... I have all this spare time now!! <VBG>

Our "Hate for Lurk is unfathomable" ? Maybe Laf needs to understand, I don;t
even read his stuff... It is way to pedantic and circular, and if people
really want to live in dream worlds, that's their business.

But the wonderfully absurd post of the week, narrowly beating Sri
Da-da-darrell's posting to Sharon's list that were forwarded here is the
following:

> > Lurk is the sanest, clearest, most objective poster on a.r.e. and you
> > cannot handle it. It rattles every
> > cage of the Eck Zoo and the animals are restless when Lurk cracks the
whip.

Block Sender = Don't feed the animals.

The mirror is a powerful tool to shave off what you no lonhger need, but you
have to see some reality while there. Unfortunately, the reality some see
they forget is themsel;ves. Somehow this particular animal seems to think WE
are in the cage! Amazing <G>

Love

Michael

>
>

Diamond star

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 6:12:39 AM8/6/04

to

"Michael Wallace" <yoyoe...@waffle.com.au> wrote in message news:<4112eea1$0$25458$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...

Hi Michael and Ken, just checking in to see how this side of the
equation is getting on in their posting. Is Lurk still out there? I
guess the less life one has, the more time they have to be posting the
things he does.
I never read any of it either, but ECKANKAR tells us to respond with
love. Send him love. That doesn't mean you want to rush on over to
his domicile and cook him a nice dinner and pat him on the head. It
just means that you wish him well and know that eventually, depending
upon his current state of consciousness, he will grow into something
more than he is presently. These things can't be hurried. It is only
those with higher states of consciousness who experience instant
karma. Remember, the lower the state of consciousness, the longer it
takes for the karma to come round. So we send him, her, or whatever,
love. After all, the karma is going to come back to you, two, a lot
quicker.
I've got to go do a thing here, but you all have a really lovely
summer day. Love, Rose Sierra Diamond Star*

Al Radzik

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 6:57:13 AM8/6/04

to

Diamond star wrote:

How's Fred, Rose? Still planting bugging devices in your alarm clock?
You fruitcake.<GG>

Alf

Ken

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 8:10:36 AM8/6/04

to

"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote ...

>
> >The plagiarism by Paul is completely irrelevent. It makes no difference
> >and has nothing to do with the value of the teaching, nor the intentions
> >of the teacher.
> >
> >There is little value in pointing out the irrelvent.
>
> See? Cult Creeps think that lying, deceiving and stealing intellectual property
> is A-OK as long as it supports their sad little lives.

No Jadooooo, I do not think that. I think that there was little in the way
of lying, deceiving and certainly very little if no stealing of intellectual
property.

No one was robbed of their property, Jadooooo. If you were deceived,
IMO you deceived yourself.

>
> Thanks for making your character crystal clear. Proof positive that eckankrap
> is a cult.

This statement is proof that you're simply filling in the blanks in the only
way you know how. A two year old with a coloring book and only one
crayon will have a very good time make everything yellow, if that's all she
has.

Ken

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 8:10:37 AM8/6/04

to

"Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote ...

>
> "Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
> news:gwAQc.394015$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >

> > The plagiarism by Paul is completely irrelevent.
>
> It is irrelevant if you are not a true believer. It would be as significant
> as saying some toothpaste mongel plagerized his shiney-bright-teeth thesis.
>
> It's relevant to someone who places his or her trust in a human being that
> claims to be god only to find out that god is doing copy-paste (old school
> style) so that you can read about philosophy that god himself was too busy
> to generate in his own words.

And it's especially relevent to someone who misunderstood the whole
idea of what Paul was trying to accomplish.

>
> There are only two thoughts (boiled down) that can occur when an eckist is
> faced with the evidence of Paul's plagerism - 1)reverse spin - self-stories
> that neutralize the threat of such evidence OR 2)Re-evaluation of the
> leader(s) of your path and perhaps the path itself.

I'm skeptical of only two stories. There are always other possibilities.

>
> If Harry misrepresented as Lurk suggests, then we have our two mental
> choices above. Needs - your personal needs define what is relevant and what
> is irrelevant. But what you "need" doesn't necessarily define the scope of
> what the hell is really going on, it just defines the port of the brain
> drain that you are plugged into.
>
> It makes no difference
> > and has nothing to do with the value of the teaching, nor the intentions
> > of the teacher.
>
> The above of course is a fine example of a self-story to neutralize.

That's not a story, it's a conclusion.

>
> >
> > There is little value in pointing out the irrelvent.
>
> But there is great value in labeling something irrelevant if you cannot
> afford to look at it's relevance.

That is true. Attachment to a perspective can cause one to avoid seeing
the possibilities. As a semi-disgruntled former Eckist, can you personally
afford to look at it's irrelevance?

Jadoo941

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 9:06:44 AM8/6/04

to

>
>"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>> >The plagiarism by Paul is completely irrelevent. It makes no difference
>> >and has nothing to do with the value of the teaching, nor the intentions
>> >of the teacher.
>> >
>> >There is little value in pointing out the irrelvent.
>>
>> See? Cult Creeps think that lying, deceiving and stealing intellectual
>property
>> is A-OK as long as it supports their sad little lives.
>
>
>No Jadooooo, I do not think that. I think that there was little in the way
>of lying, deceiving and certainly very little if no stealing of intellectual
>property.

Golly Ken, why do you think your kindergarten teacher told you not to copy? Any
clue? Are you truly this clue-less?

>
>No one was robbed of their property, Jadooooo. If you were deceived,
>IMO you deceived yourself.

What an asshole. Is that what your cheating wife said to you?

>>
>> Thanks for making your character crystal clear. Proof positive that
>eckankrap
>> is a cult.
>
>
>This statement is proof that you're simply filling in the blanks in the only
>way you know how. A two year old with a coloring book and only one
>crayon will have a very good time make everything yellow, if that's all she
>has.

Let me help you some more as you seem to be constitutionally incapable of being
honest with yourself. "A two year old with a stolen coloring book and a crayon
will feel uneasy and dirty, even at their young age."

Kids know it's wrong. Why don't you Ken?

Hey, can I "borrow" your wife tonight? Please don't judge me intentions. It's
got nothing to do with you. I have a larger purpose. <smirk>

Keep digging a hole Ken. You may have to live in it.

Jadoo941

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 9:12:09 AM8/6/04

to

>Subject: Re: Both Sides of the Coin
>From: Diamond...@aol.com (Diamond star)
>Date: 8/6/2004 3:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <8506a138.04080...@posting.google.com>

That a whack-job like Rose is on your side should tell you volumns about how
you are doing and what eckankra is.

Don't listen to me, listen to Rose. ECKANKRAP, the Religion of Looneys and
Schizoids ! <schmile>

Jadoo941

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 9:25:22 AM8/6/04

to

>
>"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>Ken:
>> >Well, that's the goal. Nirvana, the dropping of all illusion, seeing
>truly.
>>
>> Not a goal. What will be was then, is now. When you sleep do you have
>> the goal to wake up? No, you just wake up when you are done sleeping.
>
>
>Sure, of course. No need to get caught up in semantics. "Goal" in this
>sense isn't something that
>one strives for, but it is welcomed.

Oh well, no need to get caught up in clarity eh? It's just a.r.e. where
everyone is talking out their ass anyway, right?

>> >But let's put the criteria that you apply to Eckankar to Buddhism. How
>> >many Bodhisattvas do you see wandering around. One? Two? Any?
>>
>> Silly goose. Bodhisattvas do not advertise such as your pretend godman
>> seeking his living from the fruits of his poor followers. They have no,
>none,
>> zero need for recognition or adulation unlike you-know-who.
>
>
>Are you sure that there's a need for recognition by the Eck masters?
>Now I bet you at this point are saying, "why else would they have
>things set up the way they do, if it wasn't for a desire for recognition?"

You are a brilliant debater Ken. Where'd you learn? Barbie and Ken school?

>>
>> >The question the seeker should have is, how effective is the teaching.
>> >The question down the road after applying the teachings in his or her
>> >own life should be, how effective has this teaching been for me? That's
>> >what really counts isn't it? That's where the rubber meets the road.
>>
>> You take my breath to have the arrogance to compare the time honored and
>> revered methods of Buddhism to that indulgent fairytale called eckankar.
>> Please.
>
>
>Oh, "please" yourself! "Revered methods of Buddhism?" Cut me a
>break. If Buddha was to meet you on the road he'd kick your fuzzy
>headed little ass.

That's the first intelligent thing you've said that I can remember.

>> YOU, none of us, is qualified to judge how effective our practice is.
>
>
>Each is required to judge his own life. Each is the master of his own
>ship. We may be at the mercy of the wind and the tides to a degree,
>but there is no one else who can choose for us which direction to
>travel.

Ah yes, Grasshopper. When you can step on the rice paper without leaving a
footprint you may wipe your ass and leave eckankrap...

>> I'll go further. If you practice with attachment to results instead of
>complete
>> surrender to IT to do with you as IT will, it leads only to negativity, as
>so
>> evident here on this group. Would you send your child to any of these
>eckists
>> for spiritual training? The very thought is horrorifying is it not? Would
>you
>> want you child to turn out like Chernobyl? I rest my case.
>
>
>And once again, here you are slipping back into ad hominem rhetoric.
>What's that you're saying about attachment to result and negativity?

Do you deny my words? Do so at your own peril, afterall YOU are the master of
your own ship. <schmile> Say, do you share ships with Rich? The USS Minnow? We
know what happened to that crew...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

sean

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 11:16:31 AM8/6/04

to

"Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff6c$4112bd21$18e1a310$3...@allthenewsgroups.com...

ROTFLMAO

Yeah right!

cher

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 11:18:33 AM8/6/04

to

That's easy... how does the use of "plagiarized" change from the first
inclination of the thesis to the presentation of the thesis? Does that
overshadow all of his work as an entirety? Intestesting thought. See...
in the real world these things are considerations. In the world of
fundamentalists, there is no consideration.

> It's relevant to someone who places his or her trust in a human being that
> claims to be god only to find out that god is doing copy-paste (old school
> style) so that you can read about philosophy that god himself was too busy
> to generate in his own words.

It depends upon your expectations. I discovered immediately that Paul
was compiling the grist for us, and removing the dross of centuries of
culture from the material. I was and am grateful for this! If I wanted
to spend the rest of my life reading philosophies and digging out these
truths for myself, then that would be different. What Paul did for us
was to go to various sources and take the gems out and put them
together. The pure ECK of each. And this showed me that each of these
sources contained an element of the pure ECK! So I found from this that
I couldn't turn my back on these sources or those who follow them
because we had this golden thread in common, this element of truth. I
realized that this was not enough for some people, that they wanted
something more and something magical. But that didn't change this golden
thread of truth that to me proved it was man that turned his back on
god, not the other way around.

> There are only two thoughts (boiled down) that can occur when an eckist is
> faced with the evidence of Paul's plagerism - 1)reverse spin - self-stories
> that neutralize the threat of such evidence OR 2)Re-evaluation of the
> leader(s) of your path and perhaps the path itself.

That's very limited. <see above> It depends upon your expectations.
There's one book at the center of the controversy, the far country. And
that book is out of print. It was vastly different from the original but
that has been dusted over for some reason or another. Beyond that...
what was your expectation? Did you honestly not notice when you were on
the path that Paul clearly showed you what he was doing along? Or did
you not realize it? See... there's more than these two ways of looking
at this. And that's what detractors refuse to accept. The longer a
religion exists, the more it is likely it will move away from the golden
thread of truth to the generalized social constructs of needs of its
community. And in serving that community it becomes mired in the
culture. It's apparent when you take a long view of world religions.
Love. Once we become busy with living it, it begins to shift from Divine
Love to social consciousness. Do I need to accept and embrace the
culture of the society of a religion in order to find it's essence or
put that essence into practice? I can only answer for myself. But the
premise of Eckankar for me is that TRUTH has been here along, buried
beneath the debris of cultures. I knew this before I came to this path.
I knew that it wasn't which religion had the TRUTH, but that all
religions combined had the TRUTH.

> If Harry misrepresented as Lurk suggests, then we have our two mental
> choices above. Needs - your personal needs define what is relevant and what
> is irrelevant. But what you "need" doesn't necessarily define the scope of
> what the hell is really going on, it just defines the port of the brain
> drain that you are plugged into.

What's more important in this construct? Proving what you believe is
true or finding the answer? If you already think you know the answer
then good is asking? If you define the premise in so constrictive a way
that the only answers are "I'm right or you're deluded" then perhaps you
have a ways to go?

> It makes no difference
> > and has nothing to do with the value of the teaching, nor the intentions
> > of the teacher.
>
> The above of course is a fine example of a self-story to neutralize.

What's that supposed to mean???

sean

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 1:25:27 PM8/6/04

to

"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4113B330...@worldnet.att.net...

do i hear jingle bells? woohoo! he's in top form for sure. I read some other
posts and he's firing on all 8 cylinders,. it's funny place.

cher

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 2:17:51 PM8/6/04

to

I can change your posts too. In fact I can make it look as though you
kiss the ground that Sri Harold walks on. What's that going to prove?

cher

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 2:20:32 PM8/6/04

to

Yeah... santa in the closet! <smile> I don't know about eight cylinders
though... I think of alfie as a moped. <wink>

arelurker

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 3:49:04 PM8/6/04

to

Do you know how dangerous it is to rely upon a liar Cliff Note version
of spiritual truths?

Harold and Marman are a perfect example of the danger in following a
fraud.

If I wanted
> to spend the rest of my life reading philosophies and digging out these
> truths for myself, then that would be different.

Yep, you want the lazy bon bon eating approach to discovering truth.
Reading the stuff Paul plagiarized might cut into your soap opera
watching. I bet you eat microwave dinners too, eh?

What Paul did for us
> was to go to various sources and take the gems out and put them
> together.

And acted like he experience what others experienced which is totally dishonest.

> The pure ECK of each. And this showed me that each of these
> sources contained an element of the pure ECK!

This is so eckie.

So I found from this that
> I couldn't turn my back on these sources or those who follow them
> because we had this golden thread in common, this element of truth. I
> realized that this was not enough for some people, that they wanted
> something more and something magical. But that didn't change this golden
> thread of truth that to me proved it was man that turned his back on
> god, not the other way around.

This is kind of dramatic....Drama drama, drama. Cher likes her dramas.

I'm gagging here so I'll leave the rest to someone else to choke on.

Lurk

arelurker

unread,

Aug 6, 2004, 3:53:15 PM8/6/04

to

Ken wrote:
>
> "Skardicus" <neome...@msn.com> wrote ...
> >
> > "Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
> > news:gwAQc.394015$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > The plagiarism by Paul is completely irrelevent.
> >
> > It is irrelevant if you are not a true believer. It would be as significant
> > as saying some toothpaste mongel plagerized his shiney-bright-teeth thesis.
> >
> > It's relevant to someone who places his or her trust in a human being that
> > claims to be god only to find out that god is doing copy-paste (old school
> > style) so that you can read about philosophy that god himself was too busy
> > to generate in his own words.
>
> And it's especially relevent to someone who misunderstood the whole
> idea of what Paul was trying to accomplish.

We have a Marman Jr. here. Or should we call Ken a Marmanite.

Be your own man Ken, quick sucking the foul milk from Marman's tit.

>
> >
> > There are only two thoughts (boiled down) that can occur when an eckist is
> > faced with the evidence of Paul's plagerism - 1)reverse spin - self-stories
> > that neutralize the threat of such evidence OR 2)Re-evaluation of the
> > leader(s) of your path and perhaps the path itself.
>
> I'm skeptical of only two stories. There are always other possibilities.

Again, the Marman form of denial : positing other possibilities, no
matter how absurd is grasping at straws.

>
> >
> > If Harry misrepresented as Lurk suggests, then we have our two mental
> > choices above. Needs - your personal needs define what is relevant and what
> > is irrelevant. But what you "need" doesn't necessarily define the scope of
> > what the hell is really going on, it just defines the port of the brain
> > drain that you are plugged into.
> >
> > It makes no difference
> > > and has nothing to do with the value of the teaching, nor the intentions
> > > of the teacher.
> >
> > The above of course is a fine example of a self-story to neutralize.
>
> That's not a story, it's a conclusion.
>
> >
> > >
> > > There is little value in pointing out the irrelvent.
> >
> > But there is great value in labeling something irrelevant if you cannot
> > afford to look at it's relevance.
>
> That is true. Attachment to a perspective can cause one to avoid seeing
> the possibilities.

This is true, but then you got to provided supported viewpoints that
someone is going to avoid. Going around just saying their are viewpoints
as though you have fulfilled the requirement for some kind of coherent
response is the Marman mythic way to posting on newsgroups.

Lurk