Hello Non eckster and All,
There're several things
that cause relationship
problems for EKists... one
is the karma belief. Thus,
there's always that escape
clause... that past life karma
has been resolved and, now,
it's time to move on and
resolve, more, remaining
karma with the next person.

However, since ECKists
practice detachment why
should they be getting upset
and require a relationship
technique to resolve problems?

And, don't they have the
"Inner Guidance" of the
Mahanta? Why, then, do
they need the LEM's Outer
advice? If one believed the
PR H.I.s should be more
advanced than their outer
behavior which should be
balanced with that of Soul.
This is why they're so confused.
Klemp keeps them off balance
in order to control them!

On one hand EKists are told
they're advanced spiritual
beings who are capable of
inner communication with
"masters" and travel to other
planes with their Mahanta.
And, on the other hand,
their fake Mahanta needs
to communicate with then
via seminar talks and publications.
If HK was a true Master he
could communicate with
any and all of his H.I.s
simultaneously!

ECKists must believe in the
lie and deny the truth. That's
the problem and it keeps them
from growing, being free, and
becoming responsible for their
actions.

Prometheus

"Non" eckster wrote:
Klemp should be called THE LIVING LAME MASTER. His advise for communication in
marriage would just cause more frustration and problems. In fact, the main
problem may be that eckists don't really practice good communication skills
anyway. They are taught to follow advise through authoritarian hierarchical
channels. Also, they don't have that much experience with the experience of what
it means to be genuine and to accept that a certain amount of conflict is normal
in even the most loving of relationships. Their idea of love is more of a
concept anyway.

The only good thing about this stupid advise, is that a few eckists may wake up
and begin a life that is more genuine and free from clut like dictums and dogma.

noneckster ; )

prometheus wrote:
>
> It seems Klemp can't help
> but show his inadequacies
> as a pseudo-expert of both
> "spiritual" and marriage
> counseling techniques.
>
> Q: Can you help me with any
> advice on how to keep the love
> flowing in my marriage? It's
> been strained lately.
>
> A: (HK) Communication is
> a difficult thing to keep open
> in any marriage.
>
> ME: Not true! I don't have that
> problem. If you're married to the
> right person, your Soulmate or
> Twin Soul, there's no work or
> maintenance involved. It's natural
> and effortless because both are
> like minded. Apparently Klemp
> has never had the Soulmate/
> Twin Soul experience and, thus,
> has no clue as to what he's talking
> about.
>
> HK: One useful technique when
> things get strained is for one
> person to interview the other
> for twenty minutes, with notes.
>
> ME: Is this what Harry and Joan
> do? That's both funny and sad!
> What's sadder is that EKists will
> emulate him and follow this really
> stupid advice.
>
> HK: The interviewer is free to
> ask whatever he wants. The
> only limitation is no question
> can be phrased so that it can
> be answered with a simple yes
> or no. That doesn't open communication.
>
> ME: The "Interviewer?" "He?"
> How about he and she?
>
> HK: The interviewer is not able
> to defend himself against any
> accusations but must sit there
> and take it. Of course, the roles
> change in twenty minutes. The
> other spouse then becomes the
> interviewer of hopes and dashed
> dreams.
>
> ME: You must sit there and
> take it? How about having a
> rule of not saying something
> you can't take back. And then
> the roles are switched around
> so that the other spouse can
> talk about "hopes and dashed
> dreams." That's ridiculous!
>
> HK: It is surprising what marriage
> partners learn about their companions
> that make them truly interesting
> people with goals too.
>
> ME: One learns that via daily
> sharing. Klemp is really comical.
> If one read all of his writings
> it would become apparent that
> he is incapable of showing empathy.
> He'll give Lip Service to the same
> things that Christians do, but
> he's too aloof because he actually
> believes that he's God like. This
> delusion has perpetuated his
> arrested development and has
> placed him more out of touch
> with his H.I.s and chelas. This
> is why he needs his RESAs and
> those snail mail letters in order
> to "know" what's happening.
> There is no "Inner" communication!
>
From Spiritual Wisdom on Relationships, by Harold Klemp
>

An Eckankartruth repost.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/message/8312

Yes. Twitchell first stole
from "The Path of the Masters"
and now Klemp is doing
the same. Every EKist knows
that to (supposedly) have
a karma less life is to do
everything in the name of
the Sugmad, the ECK, and
the Mahanta (Klemp).

Of course it's all a lie and
a religious scam because
EKists will still see cause
and effect or bad things
happening to young and
good people who are H.I.s
and are supposed to be
beyond the reach of karma.
Still, they get cancer or some
other malady and die before
their time. Even V.P.s and
EK Board members! Plus,
look at Klemp! He's aging
very rapidly. BTW- Should
Joan be coloring her hair?
Isn't that considered to be
vain for a 9th Initiate... like
wearing contact lens versus
glasses?

Prometheus



"etznab wrote:

An Eckankartruth repost.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/message/8312

Considering the idea of agents for and of God, the LEM (Living Eck
Master) was / is apparently NOT called the one and only (as will be
shown later in Paul Twitchell's writings).

Some excerpts (and trying to correct for typos) from Julian Johnson use
the word "Master" where Paul Twitchell (or should I say, Rebazar
Tarzs?) used "Sugmad" (a word of "God").:

[...] Now, if the Master's disciple wishes to escape the creation of
karma of any sort, let him do whatever he does in the name of the
Master, acting as his agent. So long as he does that, he will not
create new karma, because he is acting solely as the agent of another,
and always the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent. But
he must do this not merely in a ceremonial way but
with his entire thought and soul in it. In deep earnest let him do all
things, every detail of his life, in the name of his Master. This will,
per necessity, oblige him to do only what he thinks his Master will
approve of. When he approaches a task or a proposed act, he will
remember that it is to be done in the name of the Master. He will fix
his mind on the Master, and then in love and devotion he will
do the work as a genuine service to the Master and in his name. He will
remember that nothing is his own. All belongs to the Master because he
has dedicated all to the Masterâ€" even his mind and his body, as well as
his property. So he must use them all as if he were using the property
of another, and use them exactly as he believes the owner would like to
have him use them. [...] But the main point under consideration here is
that if the disciple uses his mind and his body and his wealth all in
the name of the Master, he is not creating any karma. Essentially it is
the Master acting and not the disciple. The disciple is only the agent
of the Master, So long as he is acting sincerely and wholeheartedly as
the agent and disciple of the Master, it is really the Master who is
acting. When our lives are sincerely dedicated to the path, we give up
all to the Guru and we think only of doing his commands.

Jesus said: If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.
(John 8:31)

And this is so regarding the disciples of any Master. Inayat Khan, a
noted Sufi, says: Give us all you have, and we will give you all we
possess.

And in that saying there is much wisdom and a great promise. It means
that if the disciple gives up allâ€" mind, body, wealth and soul to the
Master, the Master will in return give the disciple such wealth as no
king ever possessed. The Master will give him riches that surpass all
else on earth, and in exchange for the surrender of himself to the
Master, he will gain a freedom that makes him master of a limitless
empire. It is not that the Master wants the disciple's mind or body or
property. It is for the benefit of the disciple alone that the Master
asks him to dedicate all to him. Such a gift on the part of the
disciple generates more love in the disciple and enables the Master to
do more for him, and at the same time it protects the disciple from
making mistakes. [... .]

Based on: The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, Copyright 1939

http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt

*********

[...] "Now, if you wish to escape the creation of karma of any sort,
then whatever you do, must be done in the name of the SUGMAD, while
acting as his agent. So long as you do that, you will not create new
karma, because you are acting solely as the agent of another, and
always the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent.

"You must do this not merely in a ceremonial way, but with your entire
thought and Soul in it. In deep earnest, you must let yourself do all things,
every detail of your life, in the name of the SUGMAD. This will, by necessity,
oblige you to do only what you think the SUGMAD intends for you to do.

"This is the psychology which is a part of the philosophy of ECKANKAR.
Do every action in the name of the SUGMAD, and you have no responsibility
toward any living creature in the lower worlds, under the plane of the SUGMAD.

"When you approach a task, or a proposed act, you will remember that it
is to be done in the name of the SUGMAD. You will fix your mind merely
on the name of the SUGMAD, and in sincerity it will be done as a
genuine service.

"The SUGMAD does not. The catalytic agent is the ECK power which works
between you and the SUGMAD. It carries out your action relieving you of
the responsibility which would otherwise have settled upon your shoulders.

"You must remember that nothing is your own. All belongs to the SUGMAD,
because all creation belongs to the greatest deity, and you use your
body, mind and Soul as the property of the SUGMAD. The main point I am
making here is that if you use your mind and your body and possessions
in the name of the SUGMAD, you are not creating any karma.

"Essentially it is the SUGMAD acting and not you. You are merely the
agent of the SUGMAD, while at the same time the SUGMAD is your agent.
So long as you are acting sincerely and whole-heartedly as the agent of
the SUGMAD, it is really the SUGMAD who is acting as your agent.

"Gopal Das, noted ECK Master, said that if you give all, you will get
all. In this saying there is wisdom and a great promise. It means that
if you give up all, mind, body, wealth and Soul to the SUGMAD, the
SUGMAD must by ITS own law serve you in return.[... .]

Reportedly, this was Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country, by Paul
Twitchell, Copyright 1971

http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt

*********

Notice that Julian Johnson writes: Inayat Khan, a noted Sufi, says:
Give us all you have, and we will give you all we possess.

Notice that Rebazar Tarzs says: "Gopal Das, noted ECK Master, said that
if you give all, you will get all.

*********

Furthermore, In Paul's Twitchell's book there are other agents of the
Sugmad. Including the Silent Ones and the Spiritual Travelers.

But that's not all. Speaking about the Hindu Trinity, etc., Julian
Johnson writes:

[...] In fact, these three represent creative currents; they carry the
creative impulses from the greater powers above. But they have been
given these individual names as persons. It is well to remember that
all creative currents may become personal, that is, take individual
form and assume individual duties. Now these three have generally been
accepted as the Hindu trinity of gods, most commonly known in their
pantheon. Millions worship them in spite of their subordinate position.
They each perform a certain function in carrying on the work of the
world, in producing human bodies, and in keeping those bodies going.
They are agents of the supreme power in serving mankind. They are not
gods to be worshipped. [... .]

http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt

Paul Twitchell has Rebazar Tarzs say:

[...] In fact, these three represent creative currents. They carry the
creative impulses from the greater powers above, but they have been
given these individual names, as persons.

"It is well to remember that all creative currents may become personal;
that is, take individual form and assume individual duties, as Krishna,
Christ, Buddha and others. Now these three have generally been accepted
as the Hindu trinity of Gods, as commonly known in their literature and
religion. Millions worship them in spite of their subordinate position.
These powers are the real servants of man. They perform a certain
function in carrying on the work of the world, in producing human
bodies, and in keeping these bodies going. They are the agents of the
SUGMAD in serving mankind, but not gods to be worshipped by the human
race. [... .]

http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt

*********

It looks like Paul Twitchell plagiarized, paraphrased Julian Johnson
and then changed his source to Rebazar Tarzs, an Eck Master. If this is
true, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Rebazar Tarzs is a real person
belonging to a real Eckankar Eck Master lineage. Rather, it looks like
Rebazar was used as a "literary device" to animate Paul Twitchell's
writings and the writings he compiled from others. This is more than
simply plagiarism and paraphrasing. This looks (to me) like the
creation of fiction, pseudo man-made history and religion.

Somebody show me where this subject is addressed in the Eckankar
writings.

-----Original Message-----
From: etznab <etznab@...>
To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 5:58 pm
Subject: Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Looking for December 1979 Memo


It might be more than just greed.

1977 was when someone wrote a term paper about Eckankar and Eckankar's
lawyer responded to David Lane. Quoting:

"With a wide background of study you will find many similarities both
approximate and exact in many religious statements, history and
mythology. [....] How did you know Johnson didn't obtain his
information from Twitchell or Rebazar Tarzs [sic] or some other common
source? Don't be surprised that many people find the same truths and
even in the same words, commandments, etc., whether they are
concepts, stories of events, or levels of God Worlds or consciousness."

[See: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher
Consciousness, p. 124]

What this tells me is the subject of plagiarism was starting to raise
it's ugly head in 1977. It wasn't long afterward that Darwin announced
he and Gail were getting a divorce. Subsequent to that, Darwin started
looking for someone to take over the "spiritual" side of Eckankar,
while Darwin managed the "business" side.

Gail would have known about the plagiarisms, IMO, and so would Patti
Simpson. Gail would also be able to answer questions about the identity
of Rebazar Tarzs. If it (the truth) wasn't a pretty picture, I suspect
that neither Gail, nor Patti, nor just about anybody wanted to talk
about it publicly because it could implicate them in a 'cover-up';
people might ask, Why are you just mentioning this now?

It looks like so many people bailed and jumped ship. Gail, Patti,
Bluth, etc., etc. Why would anybody do that if Rebazar and the LEM were
real deals?

I think people knew a lot more than they wanted to tell the membership.
Even to this very day. And I also suspect so many people are afraid to
speak, or question the LEM. Most especially, Eckankar members.
Afterall, Harold Klemp testified that the LEM was an agent for, and
agent of God.

Example One: (See: agent for God) - Deposition of Harold Klemp Vol 1,
May 30, 1984 page 0008 - line 21.

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=9

Example Two: (See: agent of God) Deposition of Harold Klemp Vol 1, May
30, 1984 page 0021 - line 9.

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=9

-----Original Message-----
From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 4:16 pm
Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Looking for December 1979 Memo


Well, there you go. It's all about greed. It still amazes me that
Eckankar hasn't fallen flat on its face after the overwhelming evidence
has proven that it's a big lie. Then again, Casey Anthony was acquitted.

Al

DAVIDP111@... wrote:

Gail was noted in about 1977 that she 'gave' the copyrights to
eckankar. In reality she got her first $500,000 check from eckankar.
part of the agreement was they protected her legally for any copyright
issues that might arise from Paul's writings. She got $94,000 a year
for life payments starting then, which was a huge amount at that time,
lifetime health insurance and a gas expense account for life.

I do'nt believe in Karma!
diana

The jury is still out for
me. Now, as far as all of
those different types of
karma that's different....
it's even more difficult
to see or buy into since
experts, like Twit and Klemp,
are mostly conmen. However,
buying into the cause and
effect of daily karma is
more believable and is
something people can
see or at least understand
at times. At other times
it doesn't equate.

Basically, we're born,
we live, we die. All matter
decomposes and changes
its form within a set time
frame. But, these experiences
and memories of days,
months, and years are
all tied together in a
continuous Now because,
in reality, time is an illusion.

The how and why of our
lives sometimes seems
within our awareness and
control, to a degree, but
mostly it's a crap shoot
that relies upon the fate
of our path via our conscious
and unconscious decisions.
Our choices and attitudes
either help or hinder us
(delay us) in achieving
what we desire most, IMO,
happiness and contentment
and some knowledge of
the "How" and "Why."

With most people, however,
we've rationalized and deluded
ourselves to believe what we
and others have come to conveniently
think, sell, or believe and have
been convinced of what we need
and desire.

Prometheus

"Diana Stanley" wrote:
>
> I do'nt believe in Karma!
> diana
>

Like so many other ideas, Karma doesn't hold water and seems to be a bastardized
explanation of the way life works. It seems to have its origins in mythology and
you'd need to read Joseph Campbell for an informed and intelligent look at the
idea.

Of course, Eckankar, as a notorious bullshit organization, goes to town with the
karma idea. It's just another in a series of things people can latch onto by
believing that their own mental impressions and fantasies have root in reality.

I was recently watching a documentary on the Buddha for the third time.
Curiously, Siddharta had an epiphany that life/nature goes through a cycle of
being born, living, experiencing old age then decline, then at last dying. In
the world of nature, rebirth is the next round of life that appears. This in no
way suggests it's the same "soul" that reappears, but rather it's the way life
works, in a cycle. And Siddharta realized that he was part of this cycle and
there was no reason to keep trying to escape it. Instead he realized it's
important to embrace life and these realities. All else is self-deceit. The
illusion is that life and all of its problems has a basis in longevity and real
importance. To paraphrase the Dalai Llama, being illusory doesn't mean it's not
real, but rather its importance is illusory.

Eckankar is all about manipulation of people, facts and world teachings. If
Harold, Twitch or any of the other Disney characters had an conscience, they
would be ashamed of what they do to people in the way of this manipulation.

--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> The jury is still out for
> me. Now, as far as all of
> those different types of
> karma that's different....
> it's even more difficult
> to see or buy into since
> experts, like Twit and Klemp,
> are mostly conmen. However,
> buying into the cause and
> effect of daily karma is
> more believable and is
> something people can
> see or at least understand
> at times. At other times
> it doesn't equate.
>
> Basically, we're born,
> we live, we die. All matter
> decomposes and changes
> its form within a set time
> frame. But, these experiences
> and memories of days,
> months, and years are
> all tied together in a
> continuous Now because,
> in reality, time is an illusion.
>
> The how and why of our
> lives sometimes seems
> within our awareness and
> control, to a degree, but
> mostly it's a crap shoot
> that relies upon the fate
> of our path via our conscious
> and unconscious decisions.
> Our choices and attitudes
> either help or hinder us
> (delay us) in achieving
> what we desire most, IMO,
> happiness and contentment
> and some knowledge of
> the "How" and "Why."
>
> With most people, however,
> we've rationalized and deluded
> ourselves to believe what we
> and others have come to conveniently
> think, sell, or believe and have
> been convinced of what we need
> and desire.
>
> Prometheus
>
> "Diana Stanley" wrote:
> >
> > I do'nt believe in Karma!
> > diana
> >
>

When I first got out of eckankar many years ago I too contemplated (forgive the
term) whether Klemp was deluded, a nutjob or some other kind of lunatic. My
conclusion is this: He is full of shit, knows he is full of shit and many of his
followers knows he is full of shit. Most eckists think he's god incarnate. I
have to imagine he could be a sociopath because if he had a conscience he would
clearly have a difficult time living with himself for years on end spewing the
same outrageous, absurd lies. He threatens people, writes dribble, creates a
"lexicon" by merely changing the definitions of real words to suit his cult, and
he imparts blessings on people. Think about it. It takes a nutjob to do this
sort of thing.

I only wished that I trusted my instincts before I ever got involved in eckankar
more than 20 years ago after reading Twitchell's nonsense and hearing his
illiterate, backwoods rhetoric. This was before I even knew there was a Harold
Klemp.

--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Etznab and All,
> Thanks for the post.
> It was right on! I'm
> beginning to think
> that Klemp might be
> schizophrenic along
> with a few other psychosis.
>
> For one thing, it's clear
> that Klemp and his inner
> circle are aware that he's
> not in control of anyone
> or anything except his
> own followers, and that's
> limited too. The effects of
> what HK says works like
> Voo Doo. It takes a true
> believer to give his words
> power. Thus, Klemp is
> more the carnival hypnotist
> as he programs via repeated
> suggestions in order to have
> his puppets act, talk, and
> believe in a certain way.
> ECKists are like chickens
> in a hen house while HK is
> the fox guarding it in their
> dreams.
>
> IMO, half of Klemp knows
> he's a fraud and the other
> half is thinking that fate
> has given him some magical
> powers... and to be a messenger
> of hope and for the good
> of mankind. Basically, he's
> scamming ECKists out of
> their time and money like
> other religious leaders are
> doing with their followers.
> And, there are probably
> the same proportion of
> EKists who are hypocrites
> and heretics as with all
> religions. This doesn't make
> any ECKist "special" only
> average. But, their egos
> need to feel "special" in
> order to believe all the lies!
>
> Prometheus
>
>
>
>
> etznab wrote:
> Apparently, a chief source for the Eckankar teachings has come from
> imagination. Even since the beginning. And it looks this way still.
>
> Some things can be checked and some writings Paul Twitchell compiled /
> copied / paraphrased from. However, imagination has always been a
> source for what Eckankar and Eckists share.
>
> If what comes from "Eck Masters" on the inner is "real" I say it is
> most likely real because people in their imaginations made it real.
> Imaginations fed by stories concocted by people before them by
> imagination and / or concocted deliberately for some other purposes.
>
> Imagination has and can bring many amazing things. Including many
> inventions. So maybe it's better to call imagination the source of so
> many spiritual teachings and not necessarily some largely anonymous
> lineage, league, council, etc. of Masters hiding out in the background
> of physical paintings, drawings and books?
>
>
> prometheus wrote:
>
> It was a Bait and Switch
> when most long-time EKists
> were fooled. We were told
> EKankar was a "Spiritual
> Path" and not really a religion,
> but we were told Twitchell
> needed to play-the-game
> to protect the outer org
> and for the tax free benefits
> in order for the EK teachings
> to survive. Years after his
> death we found out that
> Twitchell lied about everything
> and had been a liar for all
> his life.
>
> Then, later, Klemp came
> on the scene by tricking
> Gross into thinking he could
> be trusted and that there was
> room at the top for two ECK
> Masters. This is when the
> big changes in direction took
> place and ECKankar became
> an "official religion" for all
> ECKists to see and to promote.
> And, it's when Klemp began
> to introduce his dogmatic
> leanings toward the Lutheran
> Church with quotes from
> the distorted King James
> version of the Bible.
>
> Now, HK is still looking for
> volunteers to bring in more
> money. He'll say things like,
> "You, as ECKists, are very
> special messengers of the
> Mahanta." Yet, Klemp can't
> deliver because he's not a
> God nor a Master. Feeling
> "special" is a trap. It's pretend!
>
> ECKists are asked to imagine
> and dream and convince them-
> selves that reality is not this
> life... it's more, therefore,
> don't look here, look over
> there! But, in the mean time,
> EKists need to sell more books
> and CDs/DVDs and all sorts
> of crap which make the same
> promises as before, but has
> new wrappings and testimonials.
> Klemp's KAL trap is one of
> distraction and to keep EKies
> busy so they don't have time
> to think about anything except
> ECKankar.
>
> Plus, the reasons for why
> Klemp is pushing for ECKists
> to volunteer so much and
> read his books is easy to
> understand once it is pointed
> out:
>
> 1. His ego needs the accolades.
> HK has to live up to his listing
> in "The International Who's
> Who of Intellectuals" which
> he paid for!
>
> 2. He has to impress the
> other preachers and holy
> men, not only in the Chanhassen/
> Minneapolis area, around
> the world, as well as, his
> low/loyal servants/followers.
>
> 3. Klemp receives 50%
> royalties on everything with
> his name on it, therefore,
> he needs to push out more
> and more merchandise.
>
> 4. I'm thinking that Klemp
> wants to set some kind of
> a record for writing the most
> "books." His followers will
> feel proud of him, he will
> feel proud, and it gives a
> false sense of validation
> for what he's writing. Plus,
> EKists will buy his redundant
> newly packaged merchandise
> adding money to his pockets
> while taking money from them.
> But, they're paying to feel
> good, so, if not him it would
> be something/someone else...
> like family.
>
> 5. His books manipulate and
> hypnotize his followers. It
> keeps them living in delusion.
>
> 6. It's a way to recruit more
> people which means more
> volunteers and more money.
> Remember, Klemp has said
> "there's no free lunch in
> Eckankar."
>
> Here's a video from David Lane
> that points out that these fake
> Masters, like Klemp, simply get
> in the way of Soul's freedom to
> Be and to grow. Why become
> codependent upon a "Mahanta"
> or anyone?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i6RjV4ltY0
>
> Prometheus
>

The power of suggestion can influence one's dreams. I am convinced of
this. A lot of times my dreams will reflect what was playing on TV just
before bed. If not that, then they would be involved with what was on
my mind just before sleep. I think it's a natural process for the mind
to sort out experiences during the day. People actually re-live some of
that stuff that went on during the day.

Now if a person reads an Eck book and has Eck Masters on the brain just
before bed, I don't see it unusual people would find these things
turning up on the inner and in dreams.

Perhaps one of the misunderstandings people have is that anything not a
symbolical dream is a "real" experience. As if all vivid dreams and
inner experiences are somehow more real compared with dreams that don't
make sense because the information is scrambled, or symbolic.

I never thought about this much, but I think delusions can be very
vivid too. Especially when the subconscious is involved; and anything
like inner planes. Moreover, on the inner planes entities can probably
take various forms in order to influence the dreamer. The entities need
not be some other thing outside the individual, but could be entities
created by the individual instead. Like memes, or facimilies.
Personally created, or borrowed from others.

What I would really like to know more than anything else is what Paul
Twitchell's original works and manuscripts show about his Eck Masters.
Rebazar Tarzs chief among them. However, as I did not write the script
and haven't the originals all I can do is read and listen to what was
put in Eckankar books and Eckankar people say; which, IMO doesn't
automatically equate with truth. Knowing the truth is the only way to
purge the fictional characters though, IMO. Because so long as an
inkling of belief in fiction as literal truth remains, I suspect people
will be subject to an extent. At the same time, I think enough history
remains to describe the truth more accurately. History like what exists
in the Vatican archives though, and what so many are not allowed to
see.

Recently I was reminded that both Doug Marman and Harold Klemp probably
knew about things many years ago. However, I think they chose to let
some of the myths remain on account of the power and influence they can
have over people that believe.

***

a.r.e. repost ...

Oh well, What the heck. I searched for just a little bit on the Net
(about three minutes) when I found something of relevance. Here's a
short excerpt to give the gist of what it's about.

"As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has
become misunderstood in this way. I cover this in my book as well. I
know that some could say that I am just offering another
interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct one?
The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me about the
whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that dream and
gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite
straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to
swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy
with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to
clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral Library
dream as well."

http://www.mombu.com/religion/eckankar/t-another-question-for-doug-god-sense-boo\
ks-clear-office-13150495.html

I tried to find the original T.S. post for a time frame when Doug wrote
that. It appears to be early 2004. See January 3rd, 2004 post: Response
to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144

***

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/alt.religion.eckankar/8\
_wBxuhcsJg



-----Original Message-----
From: Janice Pfeiffer <jepfeiffer@...>
To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
<EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Is Klemp A Conman or A
Delusional Conman?

 
I had already seen what a room full of psychics could produce before I
became an eckist.   Eckist are busy reinforcing what the lem says
so then they all are convinced it is so.  In my early days of eckankar
I dreamed about the lem and other masters. Marvelous things did I see
in my dreams.  I believe that was because I was influenced by what I
read and what other eckist said.  I wanted to believe.  Near the end of
my days in eckankar, my dreams concerning these eckist and the eck
masters got really distorted.  They and the masters were doing weird
and sometimes terrible things in my dreams.  As I fell away more and
more, the worse my dreams about eckankar became.  The dreams about such
things stopped all together once I was out.  I was no longer influenced
by it. 
 
Klemp is probably still just as delusional as the day he stripped in
public and was locked up for it.  He believes he is the true lem.  From
everything I have read the only real strong trait he has is that he is
intolerant of other people.  This is then passed off as his being
overly susceptible to things because of his great burden of carrying
all those karma ridden chelas. 
 
 Klemp is uninspiring as a leader and for a god man seems to have no
inclination toward creativity.  He like Paul, takes from any source he
can and since he was a long term Lutheran, he relies on that experience
the most. 
 
In short, I believe that eckist suffer from mass hypnosis because of
their strong belief in the all knowing powers of their dull witted
lem.  How else could you explain why so many would find some one
so nondescript to be worthy of that kind of devotion.  They see what
they want to see. 

--- On Wed, 7/11/12, harrisonferrel <harrisonferrel@...>
wrote:


From: harrisonferrel <harrisonferrel@...>
Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Is Klemp A Conman or A
Delusional Conman?
To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 11:11 PM

  When I first got out of eckankar many years ago I too contemplated
(forgive the term) whether Klemp was deluded, a nutjob or some other
kind of lunatic. My conclusion is this: He is full of shit, knows he is
full of shit and many of his followers knows he is full of shit. Most
eckists think he's god incarnate. I have to imagine he could be a
sociopath because if he had a conscience he would clearly have a
difficult time living with himself for years on end spewing the same
outrageous, absurd lies. He threatens people, writes dribble, creates a
"lexicon" by merely changing the definitions of real words to suit his
cult, and he imparts blessings on people. Think about it. It takes a
nutjob to do this sort of thing.

I only wished that I trusted my instincts before I ever got involved in
eckankar more than 20 years ago after reading Twitchell's nonsense and
hearing his illiterate, backwoods rhetoric. This was before I even knew
there was a Harold Klemp.

--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Etznab and All,
> Thanks for the post.
> It was right on! I'm
> beginning to think
> that Klemp might be
> schizophrenic along
> with a few other psychosis.
>
> For one thing, it's clear
> that Klemp and his inner
> circle are aware that he's
> not in control of anyone
> or anything except his
> own followers, and that's
> limited too. The effects of
> what HK says works like
> Voo Doo. It takes a true
> believer to give his words
> power. Thus, Klemp is
> more the carnival hypnotist
> as he programs via repeated
> suggestions in order to have
> his puppets act, talk, and
> believe in a certain way.
> ECKists are like chickens
> in a hen house while HK is
> the fox guarding it in their
> dreams.
>
> IMO, half of Klemp knows
> he's a fraud and the other
> half is thinking that fate
> has given him some magical
> powers... and to be a messenger
> of hope and for the good
> of mankind. Basically, he's
> scamming ECKists out of
> their time and money like
> other religious leaders are
> doing with their followers.
> And, there are probably
> the same proportion of
> EKists who are hypocrites
> and heretics as with all
> religions. This doesn't make
> any ECKist "special" only
> average. But, their egos
> need to feel "special" in
> order to believe all the lies!
>
> Prometheus
>
>
>
>
> etznab wrote:
> Apparently, a chief source for the Eckankar teachings has come from
> imagination. Even since the beginning. And it looks this way still.
>
> Some things can be checked and some writings Paul Twitchell
compiled /
> copied / paraphrased from. However, imagination has always been a
> source for what Eckankar and Eckists share.
>
> If what comes from "Eck Masters" on the inner is "real" I say it is
> most likely real because people in their imaginations made it real.
> Imaginations fed by stories concocted by people before them by
> imagination and / or concocted deliberately for some other
purposes.
>
> Imagination has and can bring many amazing things. Including many
> inventions. So maybe it's better to call imagination the source of
so
> many spiritual teachings and not necessarily some largely anonymous
> lineage, league, council, etc. of Masters hiding out in the
background
> of physical paintings, drawings and books?
>
>
> prometheus wrote:
>
> It was a Bait and Switch
> when most long-time EKists
> were fooled. We were told
> EKankar was a "Spiritual
> Path" and not really a religion,
> but we were told Twitchell
> needed to play-the-game
> to protect the outer org
> and for the tax free benefits
> in order for the EK teachings
> to survive. Years after his
> death we found out that
> Twitchell lied about everything
> and had been a liar for all
> his life.
>
> Then, later, Klemp came
> on the scene by tricking
> Gross into thinking he could
> be trusted and that there was
> room at the top for two ECK
> Masters. This is when the
> big changes in direction took
> place and ECKankar became
> an "official religion" for all
> ECKists to see and to promote.
> And, it's when Klemp began
> to introduce his dogmatic
> leanings toward the Lutheran
> Church with quotes from
> the distorted King James
> version of the Bible.
>
> Now, HK is still looking for
> volunteers to bring in more
> money. He'll say things like,
> "You, as ECKists, are very
> special messengers of the
> Mahanta." Yet, Klemp can't
> deliver because he's not a
> God nor a Master. Feeling
> "special" is a trap. It's pretend!
>
> ECKists are asked to imagine
> and dream and convince them-
> selves that reality is not this
> life... it's more, therefore,
> don't look here, look over
> there! But, in the mean time,
> EKists need to sell more books
> and CDs/DVDs and all sorts
> of crap which make the same
> promises as before, but has
> new wrappings and testimonials.
> Klemp's KAL trap is one of
> distraction and to keep EKies
> busy so they don't have time
> to think about anything except
> ECKankar.
>
> Plus, the reasons for why
> Klemp is pushing for ECKists
> to volunteer so much and
> read his books is easy to
> understand once it is pointed
> out:
>
> 1. His ego needs the accolades.
> HK has to live up to his listing
> in "The International Who's
> Who of Intellectuals" which
> he paid for!
>
> 2. He has to impress the
> other preachers and holy
> men, not only in the Chanhassen/
> Minneapolis area, around
> the world, as well as, his
> low/loyal servants/followers.
>
> 3. Klemp receives 50%
> royalties on everything with
> his name on it, therefore,
> he needs to push out more
> and more merchandise.
>
> 4. I'm thinking that Klemp
> wants to set some kind of
> a record for writing the most
> "books." His followers will
> feel proud of him, he will
> feel proud, and it gives a
> false sense of validation
> for what he's writing. Plus,
> EKists will buy his redundant
> newly packaged merchandise
> adding money to his pockets
> while taking money from them.
> But, they're paying to feel
> good, so, if not him it would
> be something/someone else...
> like family.
>
> 5. His books manipulate and
> hypnotize his followers. It
> keeps them living in delusion.
>
> 6. It's a way to recruit more
> people which means more
> volunteers and more money.
> Remember, Klemp has said
> "there's no free lunch in
> Eckankar."
>
> Here's a video from David Lane
> that points out that these fake
> Masters, like Klemp, simply get
> in the way of Soul's freedom to
> Be and to grow. Why become
> codependent upon a "Mahanta"
> or anyone?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i6RjV4ltY0
>
> Prometheus
>

Hello Etznab and All,
Forgive me for saying this
but I'm not so sure you would
have believed the resurrection
if you could have put your
fingers into Jesus' wounds.

Why think that seeing documents
in the Vatican archives would
expose the truth? Who wrote
those documents and how
many times were they edited
and rewritten? Plus, it was all
subjective from one person's
POV and experience. What
biases and influences did this
person buy into during this
ancient time and what was
the level of their intellect?
Were they superstitious? Thus,
even if this person was another
Albert Einstein are we to trust
their personal religious experience?

As far as Twitchell goes there
is quite enough proof, via the
timeline, to show his Rebazar
lie. It's been pointed out Using
PT's own words in "Difficulties
Of Becoming The LEM."

And, of course, Marman and
Klemp are liars and have been
covering up the Truth for years.

Back in the Mid-'80s Klemp
had Marge and others look
into Twit's Kirpal and Sudar
Singh claims and uncovered
numerous lies. Klemp even
mentions on the eckankar
web site that Twit lied in
order to get into "Who's Who
in Kentucky." Plus, Marman
admitted that Twit made up
the whole Mahanta thing in
1968. Also, Marman admitted
that Twit lied about being in
Paris, France and that it was
actually Paris, Kentucky.

Prometheus

etznab@... wrote:
>
> The power of suggestion can influence one's dreams. I am convinced of
> this. A lot of times my dreams will reflect what was playing on TV just
> before bed. If not that, then they would be involved with what was on
> my mind just before sleep. I think it's a natural process for the mind
> to sort out experiences during the day. People actually re-live some of
> that stuff that went on during the day.
>
> Now if a person reads an Eck book and has Eck Masters on the brain just
> before bed, I don't see it unusual people would find these things
> turning up on the inner and in dreams.
>
> Perhaps one of the misunderstandings people have is that anything not a
> symbolical dream is a "real" experience. As if all vivid dreams and
> inner experiences are somehow more real compared with dreams that don't
> make sense because the information is scrambled, or symbolic.
>
> I never thought about this much, but I think delusions can be very
> vivid too. Especially when the subconscious is involved; and anything
> like inner planes. Moreover, on the inner planes entities can probably
> take various forms in order to influence the dreamer. The entities need
> not be some other thing outside the individual, but could be entities
> created by the individual instead. Like memes, or facimilies.
> Personally created, or borrowed from others.
>
> What I would really like to know more than anything else is what Paul
> Twitchell's original works and manuscripts show about his Eck Masters.
> Rebazar Tarzs chief among them. However, as I did not write the script
> and haven't the originals all I can do is read and listen to what was
> put in Eckankar books and Eckankar people say; which, IMO doesn't
> automatically equate with truth. Knowing the truth is the only way to
> purge the fictional characters though, IMO. Because so long as an
> inkling of belief in fiction as literal truth remains, I suspect people
> will be subject to an extent. At the same time, I think enough history
> remains to describe the truth more accurately. History like what exists
> in the Vatican archives though, and what so many are not allowed to
> see.
>
> Recently I was reminded that both Doug Marman and Harold Klemp probably
> knew about things many years ago. However, I think they chose to let
> some of the myths remain on account of the power and influence they can
> have over people that believe.
>
> ***
>
> a.r.e. repost ...
>
> Oh well, What the heck. I searched for just a little bit on the Net
> (about three minutes) when I found something of relevance. Here's a
> short excerpt to give the gist of what it's about.
>
> "As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has
> become misunderstood in this way. I cover this in my book as well. I
> know that some could say that I am just offering another
> interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct one?
> The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me about the
> whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that dream and
> gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite
> straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to
> swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy
> with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to
> clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral Library
> dream as well."
>
>
http://www.mombu.com/religion/eckankar/t-another-question-for-doug-god-sense-boo\
ks-clear-office-13150495.html
>
> I tried to find the original T.S. post for a time frame when Doug wrote
> that. It appears to be early 2004. See January 3rd, 2004 post: Response
> to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman
>
> http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144
>
> ***
>
>
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/alt.religion.eckankar/8\
_wBxuhcsJg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janice Pfeiffer <jepfeiffer@...>
> To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
> <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Is Klemp A Conman or A
> Delusional Conman?
>
>  
> I had already seen what a room full of psychics could produce before I
> became an eckist.   Eckist are busy reinforcing what the lem says
> so then they all are convinced it is so.  In my early days of eckankar
> I dreamed about the lem and other masters. Marvelous things did I see
> in my dreams.  I believe that was because I was influenced by what I
> read and what other eckist said.  I wanted to believe.  Near the end of
> my days in eckankar, my dreams concerning these eckist and the eck
> masters got really distorted.  They and the masters were doing weird
> and sometimes terrible things in my dreams.  As I fell away more and
> more, the worse my dreams about eckankar became.  The dreams about such
> things stopped all together once I was out.  I was no longer influenced
> by it. 
>  
> Klemp is probably still just as delusional as the day he stripped in
> public and was locked up for it.  He believes he is the true lem.  From
> everything I have read the only real strong trait he has is that he is
> intolerant of other people.  This is then passed off as his being
> overly susceptible to things because of his great burden of carrying
> all those karma ridden chelas. 
>  
>  Klemp is uninspiring as a leader and for a god man seems to have no
> inclination toward creativity.  He like Paul, takes from any source he
> can and since he was a long term Lutheran, he relies on that experience
> the most. 
>  
> In short, I believe that eckist suffer from mass hypnosis because of
> their strong belief in the all knowing powers of their dull witted
> lem.  How else could you explain why so many would find some one
> so nondescript to be worthy of that kind of devotion.  They see what
> they want to see. 
>
> --- On Wed, 7/11/12, harrisonferrel harrisonferrel@...
> wrote:
>
>
> From: harrisonferrel harrisonferrel@...
> Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Is Klemp A Conman or A
> Delusional Conman?
> To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 11:11 PM
>
>   When I first got out of eckankar many years ago I too contemplated
> (forgive the term) whether Klemp was deluded, a nutjob or some other
> kind of lunatic. My conclusion is this: He is full of shit, knows he is
> full of shit and many of his followers knows he is full of shit. Most
> eckists think he's god incarnate. I have to imagine he could be a
> sociopath because if he had a conscience he would clearly have a
> difficult time living with himself for years on end spewing the same
> outrageous, absurd lies. He threatens people, writes dribble, creates a
> "lexicon" by merely changing the definitions of real words to suit his
> cult, and he imparts blessings on people. Think about it. It takes a
> nutjob to do this sort of thing.
>
> I only wished that I trusted my instincts before I ever got involved in
> eckankar more than 20 years ago after reading Twitchell's nonsense and
> hearing his illiterate, backwoods rhetoric. This was before I even knew
> there was a Harold Klemp.
>
> --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
> prometheus_973@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello Etznab and All,
> > Thanks for the post.
> > It was right on! I'm
> > beginning to think
> > that Klemp might be
> > schizophrenic along
> > with a few other psychosis.
> >
> > For one thing, it's clear
> > that Klemp and his inner
> > circle are aware that he's
> > not in control of anyone
> > or anything except his
> > own followers, and that's
> > limited too. The effects of
> > what HK says works like
> > Voo Doo. It takes a true
> > believer to give his words
> > power. Thus, Klemp is
> > more the carnival hypnotist
> > as he programs via repeated
> > suggestions in order to have
> > his puppets act, talk, and
> > believe in a certain way.
> > ECKists are like chickens
> > in a hen house while HK is
> > the fox guarding it in their
> > dreams.
> >
> > IMO, half of Klemp knows
> > he's a fraud and the other
> > half is thinking that fate
> > has given him some magical
> > powers... and to be a messenger
> > of hope and for the good
> > of mankind. Basically, he's
> > scamming ECKists out of
> > their time and money like
> > other religious leaders are
> > doing with their followers.
> > And, there are probably
> > the same proportion of
> > EKists who are hypocrites
> > and heretics as with all
> > religions. This doesn't make
> > any ECKist "special" only
> > average. But, their egos
> > need to feel "special" in
> > order to believe all the lies!
> >
> > Prometheus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > etznab wrote:
> > Apparently, a chief source for the Eckankar teachings has come from
> > imagination. Even since the beginning. And it looks this way still.
> >
> > Some things can be checked and some writings Paul Twitchell
> compiled /
> > copied / paraphrased from. However, imagination has always been a
> > source for what Eckankar and Eckists share.
> >
> > If what comes from "Eck Masters" on the inner is "real" I say it is
> > most likely real because people in their imaginations made it real.
> > Imaginations fed by stories concocted by people before them by
> > imagination and / or concocted deliberately for some other
> purposes.
> >
> > Imagination has and can bring many amazing things. Including many
> > inventions. So maybe it's better to call imagination the source of
> so
> > many spiritual teachings and not necessarily some largely anonymous
> > lineage, league, council, etc. of Masters hiding out in the
> background
> > of physical paintings, drawings and books?
> >
> >
> > prometheus wrote:
> >
> > It was a Bait and Switch
> > when most long-time EKists
> > were fooled. We were told
> > EKankar was a "Spiritual
> > Path" and not really a religion,
> > but we were told Twitchell
> > needed to play-the-game
> > to protect the outer org
> > and for the tax free benefits
> > in order for the EK teachings
> > to survive. Years after his
> > death we found out that
> > Twitchell lied about everything
> > and had been a liar for all
> > his life.
> >
> > Then, later, Klemp came
> > on the scene by tricking
> > Gross into thinking he could
> > be trusted and that there was
> > room at the top for two ECK
> > Masters. This is when the
> > big changes in direction took
> > place and ECKankar became
> > an "official religion" for all
> > ECKists to see and to promote.
> > And, it's when Klemp began
> > to introduce his dogmatic
> > leanings toward the Lutheran
> > Church with quotes from
> > the distorted King James
> > version of the Bible.
> >
> > Now, HK is still looking for
> > volunteers to bring in more
> > money. He'll say things like,
> > "You, as ECKists, are very
> > special messengers of the
> > Mahanta." Yet, Klemp can't
> > deliver because he's not a
> > God nor a Master. Feeling
> > "special" is a trap. It's pretend!
> >
> > ECKists are asked to imagine
> > and dream and convince them-
> > selves that reality is not this
> > life... it's more, therefore,
> > don't look here, look over
> > there! But, in the mean time,
> > EKists need to sell more books
> > and CDs/DVDs and all sorts
> > of crap which make the same
> > promises as before, but has
> > new wrappings and testimonials.
> > Klemp's KAL trap is one of
> > distraction and to keep EKies
> > busy so they don't have time
> > to think about anything except
> > ECKankar.
> >
> > Plus, the reasons for why
> > Klemp is pushing for ECKists
> > to volunteer so much and
> > read his books is easy to
> > understand once it is pointed
> > out:
> >
> > 1. His ego needs the accolades.
> > HK has to live up to his listing
> > in "The International Who's
> > Who of Intellectuals" which
> > he paid for!
> >
> > 2. He has to impress the
> > other preachers and holy
> > men, not only in the Chanhassen/
> > Minneapolis area, around
> > the world, as well as, his
> > low/loyal servants/followers.
> >
> > 3. Klemp receives 50%
> > royalties on everything with
> > his name on it, therefore,
> > he needs to push out more
> > and more merchandise.
> >
> > 4. I'm thinking that Klemp
> > wants to set some kind of
> > a record for writing the most
> > "books." His followers will
> > feel proud of him, he will
> > feel proud, and it gives a
> > false sense of validation
> > for what he's writing. Plus,
> > EKists will buy his redundant
> > newly packaged merchandise
> > adding money to his pockets
> > while taking money from them.
> > But, they're paying to feel
> > good, so, if not him it would
> > be something/someone else...
> > like family.
> >
> > 5. His books manipulate and
> > hypnotize his followers. It
> > keeps them living in delusion.
> >
> > 6. It's a way to recruit more
> > people which means more
> > volunteers and more money.
> > Remember, Klemp has said
> > "there's no free lunch in
> > Eckankar."
> >
> > Here's a video from David Lane
> > that points out that these fake
> > Masters, like Klemp, simply get
> > in the way of Soul's freedom to
> > Be and to grow. Why become
> > codependent upon a "Mahanta"
> > or anyone?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i6RjV4ltY0
> >
> > Prometheus
> >
>

I belive our bodies and the mindstuff can be recyled and use to create a new
form for Spirit to utalize but our personality is not reincarnated The
personality is created by our personal experience in this life. It doesn't cross
over to another life. A new personality is created every time Spitit asumes a
physical form. Diana


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> The jury is still out for
> me. Now, as far as all of
> those different types of
> karma that's different....
> it's even more difficult
> to see or buy into since
> experts, like Twit and Klemp,
> are mostly conmen. However,
> buying into the cause and
> effect of daily karma is
> more believable and is
> something people can
> see or at least understand
> at times. At other times
> it doesn't equate.
>
> Basically, we're born,
> we live, we die. All matter
> decomposes and changes
> its form within a set time
> frame. But, these experiences
> and memories of days,
> months, and years are
> all tied together in a
> continuous Now because,
> in reality, time is an illusion.
>
> The how and why of our
> lives sometimes seems
> within our awareness and
> control, to a degree, but
> mostly it's a crap shoot
> that relies upon the fate
> of our path via our conscious
> and unconscious decisions.
> Our choices and attitudes
> either help or hinder us
> (delay us) in achieving
> what we desire most, IMO,
> happiness and contentment
> and some knowledge of
> the "How" and "Why."
>
> With most people, however,
> we've rationalized and deluded
> ourselves to believe what we
> and others have come to conveniently
> think, sell, or believe and have
> been convinced of what we need
> and desire.
>
> Prometheus
>
> "Diana Stanley" wrote:
> >
> > I do'nt believe in Karma!
> > diana
> >
>

Hello Diana,
That's interesting. IMO we all
have ancestral DNA that brings
forth choices that help or hinder
with our "spiritual" evolution
and this is how our bodies and
mindstuff are recreated. I'm
thinking that some DNA associated
with personality is also passed
on. Plus, the nurture aspect is
where and how portions of the
personality are newly formed
and where heretical portions
are stimulated. Thus, when we
see a person who has a personality
completely different from close
family members it could be that
this is simply a multi-generational
jump. Of course there are also
physical defects and changes
due to environmental issues,
etc. that will affect us as well.
Whether this could be called
karma might be too simple and
passive of an explanation that
prevents more investigation,
involvement and solutions.

The thing is, the mind can be
extremely powerful but all of
us never even come close to the
potential. Even Hawkings and
Einstein only use(d) about 11%
of the brain's potential.

It does make one wonder about
"consciousness." Is the intellect
associated with consciousness
in some way? Perhaps and to
a degree, however, I'm sure that
we know of selfish or cruel people
who have/had great intellects.
So, what went wrong? Is this
a learned or physical defect
or a choice, or both? The mind
is powerful and can rationalize,
dream, imagine, pretend, can
become fearful, can become
jealous, hateful, and is easily
distracted from a higher potential
i.e. Self-Mastery, Self-Responsibility
and Spiritual Freedom. Although,
what these terms actually mean
is for one to become their own
Master via their own private
"religion" with values, partially,
gleaned from the insights of
others versus others subjective
experiences. Life is a journey
of rediscovering daily balance
and meaning that encompasses
a lifetime.

Spirit and Soul are another
matter. Maybe Soul is actually
like being "plugged into" the
Universal Mind (all minds)
and generally by limitations
like phone wire is to wireless
or fiberoptic. But, is Spirit merely
the Universal Mind's potential?

And GOD? Maybe that's the
original source which caused
and determined our human
split from that of other animals?

Hello Harrison,
Thanks! I enjoyed reading your
comments. That's an interesting
paraphrase of the Dali Llama:
"being illusory doesn't mean it's
not real, but rather its importance
is illusory.

It's quite a play on words which
Buddhism does in order to get
people to think with depth via
creative introspection.

However, I don't really agree with
the second part (the twist) of the
statement. To me, "it's importance"
is Not Always "illusionary" due to
the illusion's powerful mental
potential to manifest and become
"real" and to create circumstances
that would end our physical existence
or well being. For me, passiveness
is self-deceit and non-attachment
is simply a coping/survival technique
(stress reducer) designed for the
mind.

However, various natural stress
reducers do have the potential
to alter our perspectives and to
give us real insights into our individual
Real Selves and that of this Real
Life Experience and Purpose.

Maybe, we are simply taking another
step for the future development,
or decline, of the Human Race and
towards its full Mental potential.
That's our part and our involvement
with what we can call the Universal
Mind's Potential. Perhaps, too, we
are being guided, unconsciously,
by this innate potential via video
games and other imaginative and
technological advances.

Prometheus


"harrisonferrel" wrote:
Like so many other ideas, Karma doesn't hold water and seems to be a bastardized
explanation of the way life works. It seems to have its origins in mythology and
you'd need to read Joseph Campbell for an informed and intelligent look at the
idea.

Of course, Eckankar, as a notorious bullshit organization, goes to town with the
karma idea. It's just another in a series of things people can latch onto by
believing that their own mental impressions and fantasies have root in reality.

I was recently watching a documentary on the Buddha for the third time.
Curiously, Siddharta had an epiphany that life/nature goes through a cycle of
being born, living, experiencing old age then decline, then at last dying. In
the world of nature, rebirth is the next round of life that appears. This in no
way suggests it's the same "soul" that reappears, but rather it's the way life
works, in a cycle. And Siddharta realized that he was part of this cycle and
there was no reason to keep trying to escape it. Instead he realized it's
important to embrace life and these realities. All else is self-deceit. The
illusion is that life and all of its problems has a basis in longevity and real
importance. To paraphrase the Dalai Llama, being illusory doesn't mean it's not
real, but rather its importance is illusory.

Eckankar is all about manipulation of people, facts and world teachings. If
Harold, Twitch or any of the other Disney characters had an conscience, they
would be ashamed of what they do to people in the way of this manipulation.

Both refer to the same page.

http://tinyurl.com/79656u2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_thread/thread/38c245\
0ac75b545b/20d35bdea8b20c87?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=experience+with+rebazar+tarzs#20d35b\
dea8b20c87

Ref. # 41391720 - Power of Awareness - Neville / The Key to Eckankar -
Twitchell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Goddard

***

"Master tricksed us."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oev2BzzN6aA

Just look at the history of any cult/religious movement and you will find
numerous examples of thousands of people being misled by some self-proclaimed
prophet, master, etc. Once they are hooked by a strong feeling, overwhelming
hypnogogic experiences, delusion and following the will of some authority figure
is a very potent mix for disaster and suffering and quite often sadism. It may
be intoxicating at first but without questioning and investigation then there
you are with a bunch of other people to agree with you, and anyone else is then
demonized.

Reading the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" about the extremes of Mormonism in
the past and the present is very interesting nonfiction about how a supposed
"empirical" like ancient gold plates seen but then taken back by God's
messenger,  and also writing a fictitious Book of Mormon, adding The Doctrine
and Covenants as documentation of Joseph Smith's "Revelations" is not so
dissimilar to eckankar and the the LIAR LIVING ECK MASTER/MAHANTA, harold klemp,
twitch and gross.

Believe in reb tarz, but there are so many other cult/religious movements to
choose from with fictional drawings of what they supposedly look like, and
believe at your own peril.

Better to just work on what is, create, love poetry, live and accept your
humanness, find a cause that makes the earth a better place, and also maybe
admit that we are all at least a little bit dirty and nasty as well as good. No
such thing as a perfect highest holy state of consciousness for anyone. Some
people I admire more than others, but even Oprah has her many flaws, and likes
celebrities who espouse a cult/religious movement. Read her unauthorized
biography by Kitty Kelley, quite the eye opener. Even the greatest
philanthropist has human flaws and problems.

eckankar is really really nasty as far as cult/religious movements go and don't
forget it!

noneckster ; )


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Etznab and All,
> Forgive me for saying this
> but I'm not so sure you would
> have believed the resurrection
> if you could have put your
> fingers into Jesus' wounds.
>
> Why think that seeing documents
> in the Vatican archives would
> expose the truth? Who wrote
> those documents and how
> many times were they edited
> and rewritten? Plus, it was all
> subjective from one person's
> POV and experience. What
> biases and influences did this
> person buy into during this
> ancient time and what was
> the level of their intellect?
> Were they superstitious? Thus,
> even if this person was another
> Albert Einstein are we to trust
> their personal religious experience?
>
> As far as Twitchell goes there
> is quite enough proof, via the
> timeline, to show his Rebazar
> lie. It's been pointed out Using
> PT's own words in "Difficulties
> Of Becoming The LEM."
>
> And, of course, Marman and
> Klemp are liars and have been
> covering up the Truth for years.
>
> Back in the Mid-'80s Klemp
> had Marge and others look
> into Twit's Kirpal and Sudar
> Singh claims and uncovered
> numerous lies. Klemp even
> mentions on the eckankar
> web site that Twit lied in
> order to get into "Who's Who
> in Kentucky." Plus, Marman
> admitted that Twit made up
> the whole Mahanta thing in
> 1968. Also, Marman admitted
> that Twit lied about being in
> Paris, France and that it was
> actually Paris, Kentucky.
>
> Prometheus
>
> etznab@ wrote:
> >
> > The power of suggestion can influence one's dreams. I am convinced of
> > this. A lot of times my dreams will reflect what was playing on TV just
> > before bed. If not that, then they would be involved with what was on
> > my mind just before sleep. I think it's a natural process for the mind
> > to sort out experiences during the day. People actually re-live some of
> > that stuff that went on during the day.
> >
> > Now if a person reads an Eck book and has Eck Masters on the brain just
> > before bed, I don't see it unusual people would find these things
> > turning up on the inner and in dreams.
> >
> > Perhaps one of the misunderstandings people have is that anything not a
> > symbolical dream is a "real" experience. As if all vivid dreams and
> > inner experiences are somehow more real compared with dreams that don't
> > make sense because the information is scrambled, or symbolic.
> >
> > I never thought about this much, but I think delusions can be very
> > vivid too. Especially when the subconscious is involved; and anything
> > like inner planes. Moreover, on the inner planes entities can probably
> > take various forms in order to influence the dreamer. The entities need
> > not be some other thing outside the individual, but could be entities
> > created by the individual instead. Like memes, or facimilies.
> > Personally created, or borrowed from others.
> >
> > What I would really like to know more than anything else is what Paul
> > Twitchell's original works and manuscripts show about his Eck Masters.
> > Rebazar Tarzs chief among them. However, as I did not write the script
> > and haven't the originals all I can do is read and listen to what was
> > put in Eckankar books and Eckankar people say; which, IMO doesn't
> > automatically equate with truth. Knowing the truth is the only way to
> > purge the fictional characters though, IMO. Because so long as an
> > inkling of belief in fiction as literal truth remains, I suspect people
> > will be subject to an extent. At the same time, I think enough history
> > remains to describe the truth more accurately. History like what exists
> > in the Vatican archives though, and what so many are not allowed to
> > see.
> >
> > Recently I was reminded that both Doug Marman and Harold Klemp probably
> > knew about things many years ago. However, I think they chose to let
> > some of the myths remain on account of the power and influence they can
> > have over people that believe.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > a.r.e. repost ...
> >
> > Oh well, What the heck. I searched for just a little bit on the Net
> > (about three minutes) when I found something of relevance. Here's a
> > short excerpt to give the gist of what it's about.
> >
> > "As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has
> > become misunderstood in this way. I cover this in my book as well. I
> > know that some could say that I am just offering another
> > interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct one?
> > The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me about the
> > whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that dream and
> > gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite
> > straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to
> > swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy
> > with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to
> > clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral Library
> > dream as well."
> >
> >
http://www.mombu.com/religion/eckankar/t-another-question-for-doug-god-sense-boo\
ks-clear-office-13150495.html
> >
> > I tried to find the original T.S. post for a time frame when Doug wrote
> > that. It appears to be early 2004. See January 3rd, 2004 post: Response
> > to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman
> >
> > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144
> >
> > ***
> >
> >
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/alt.religion.eckankar/8\
_wBxuhcsJg
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janice Pfeiffer <jepfeiffer@>
> > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
> > <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:40 pm
> > Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Is Klemp A Conman or A
> > Delusional Conman?
> >
> >  
> > I had already seen what a room full of psychics could produce before I
> > became an eckist.   Eckist are busy reinforcing what the lem says
> > so then they all are convinced it is so.  In my early days of eckankar
> > I dreamed about the lem and other masters. Marvelous things did I see
> > in my dreams.  I believe that was because I was influenced by what I
> > read and what other eckist said.  I wanted to believe.  Near the end of
> > my days in eckankar, my dreams concerning these eckist and the eck
> > masters got really distorted.  They and the masters were doing weird
> > and sometimes terrible things in my dreams.  As I fell away more and
> > more, the worse my dreams about eckankar became.  The dreams about such
> > things stopped all together once I was out.  I was no longer influenced
> > by it. 
> >  
> > Klemp is probably still just as delusional as the day he stripped in
> > public and was locked up for it.  He believes he is the true lem.  From
> > everything I have read the only real strong trait he has is that he is
> > intolerant of other people.  This is then passed off as his being
> > overly susceptible to things because of his great burden of carrying
> > all those karma ridden chelas. 
> >  
> >  Klemp is uninspiring as a leader and for a god man seems to have no
> > inclination toward creativity.  He like Paul, takes from any source he
> > can and since he was a long term Lutheran, he relies on that experience
> > the most. 
> >  
> > In short, I believe that eckist suffer from mass hypnosis because of
> > their strong belief in the all knowing powers of their dull witted
> > lem.  How else could you explain why so many would find some one
> > so nondescript to be worthy of that kind of devotion.  They see what
> > they want to see. 
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/11/12, harrisonferrel harrisonferrel@
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: harrisonferrel harrisonferrel@
> > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Is Klemp A Conman or A
> > Delusional Conman?
> > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 11:11 PM
> >
> >   When I first got out of eckankar many years ago I too contemplated
> > (forgive the term) whether Klemp was deluded, a nutjob or some other
> > kind of lunatic. My conclusion is this: He is full of shit, knows he is
> > full of shit and many of his followers knows he is full of shit. Most
> > eckists think he's god incarnate. I have to imagine he could be a
> > sociopath because if he had a conscience he would clearly have a
> > difficult time living with himself for years on end spewing the same
> > outrageous, absurd lies. He threatens people, writes dribble, creates a
> > "lexicon" by merely changing the definitions of real words to suit his
> > cult, and he imparts blessings on people. Think about it. It takes a
> > nutjob to do this sort of thing.
> >
> > I only wished that I trusted my instincts before I ever got involved in
> > eckankar more than 20 years ago after reading Twitchell's nonsense and
> > hearing his illiterate, backwoods rhetoric. This was before I even knew
> > there was a Harold Klemp.
> >
> > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
> > prometheus_973@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Etznab and All,
> > > Thanks for the post.
> > > It was right on! I'm
> > > beginning to think
> > > that Klemp might be
> > > schizophrenic along
> > > with a few other psychosis.
> > >
> > > For one thing, it's clear
> > > that Klemp and his inner
> > > circle are aware that he's
> > > not in control of anyone
> > > or anything except his
> > > own followers, and that's
> > > limited too. The effects of
> > > what HK says works like
> > > Voo Doo. It takes a true
> > > believer to give his words
> > > power. Thus, Klemp is
> > > more the carnival hypnotist
> > > as he programs via repeated
> > > suggestions in order to have
> > > his puppets act, talk, and
> > > believe in a certain way.
> > > ECKists are like chickens
> > > in a hen house while HK is
> > > the fox guarding it in their
> > > dreams.
> > >
> > > IMO, half of Klemp knows
> > > he's a fraud and the other
> > > half is thinking that fate
> > > has given him some magical
> > > powers... and to be a messenger
> > > of hope and for the good
> > > of mankind. Basically, he's
> > > scamming ECKists out of
> > > their time and money like
> > > other religious leaders are
> > > doing with their followers.
> > > And, there are probably
> > > the same proportion of
> > > EKists who are hypocrites
> > > and heretics as with all
> > > religions. This doesn't make
> > > any ECKist "special" only
> > > average. But, their egos
> > > need to feel "special" in
> > > order to believe all the lies!
> > >
> > > Prometheus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > etznab wrote:
> > > Apparently, a chief source for the Eckankar teachings has come from
> > > imagination. Even since the beginning. And it looks this way still.
> > >
> > > Some things can be checked and some writings Paul Twitchell
> > compiled /
> > > copied / paraphrased from. However, imagination has always been a
> > > source for what Eckankar and Eckists share.
> > >
> > > If what comes from "Eck Masters" on the inner is "real" I say it is
> > > most likely real because people in their imaginations made it real.
> > > Imaginations fed by stories concocted by people before them by
> > > imagination and / or concocted deliberately for some other
> > purposes.
> > >
> > > Imagination has and can bring many amazing things. Including many
> > > inventions. So maybe it's better to call imagination the source of
> > so
> > > many spiritual teachings and not necessarily some largely anonymous
> > > lineage, league, council, etc. of Masters hiding out in the
> > background
> > > of physical paintings, drawings and books?
> > >
> > >
> > > prometheus wrote:
> > >
> > > It was a Bait and Switch
> > > when most long-time EKists
> > > were fooled. We were told
> > > EKankar was a "Spiritual
> > > Path" and not really a religion,
> > > but we were told Twitchell
> > > needed to play-the-game
> > > to protect the outer org
> > > and for the tax free benefits
> > > in order for the EK teachings
> > > to survive. Years after his
> > > death we found out that
> > > Twitchell lied about everything
> > > and had been a liar for all
> > > his life.
> > >
> > > Then, later, Klemp came
> > > on the scene by tricking
> > > Gross into thinking he could
> > > be trusted and that there was
> > > room at the top for two ECK
> > > Masters. This is when the
> > > big changes in direction took
> > > place and ECKankar became
> > > an "official religion" for all
> > > ECKists to see and to promote.
> > > And, it's when Klemp began
> > > to introduce his dogmatic
> > > leanings toward the Lutheran
> > > Church with quotes from
> > > the distorted King James
> > > version of the Bible.
> > >
> > > Now, HK is still looking for
> > > volunteers to bring in more
> > > money. He'll say things like,
> > > "You, as ECKists, are very
> > > special messengers of the
> > > Mahanta." Yet, Klemp can't
> > > deliver because he's not a
> > > God nor a Master. Feeling
> > > "special" is a trap. It's pretend!
> > >
> > > ECKists are asked to imagine
> > > and dream and convince them-
> > > selves that reality is not this
> > > life... it's more, therefore,
> > > don't look here, look over
> > > there! But, in the mean time,
> > > EKists need to sell more books
> > > and CDs/DVDs and all sorts
> > > of crap which make the same
> > > promises as before, but has
> > > new wrappings and testimonials.
> > > Klemp's KAL trap is one of
> > > distraction and to keep EKies
> > > busy so they don't have time
> > > to think about anything except
> > > ECKankar.
> > >
> > > Plus, the reasons for why
> > > Klemp is pushing for ECKists
> > > to volunteer so much and
> > > read his books is easy to
> > > understand once it is pointed
> > > out:
> > >
> > > 1. His ego needs the accolades.
> > > HK has to live up to his listing
> > > in "The International Who's
> > > Who of Intellectuals" which
> > > he paid for!
> > >
> > > 2. He has to impress the
> > > other preachers and holy
> > > men, not only in the Chanhassen/
> > > Minneapolis area, around
> > > the world, as well as, his
> > > low/loyal servants/followers.
> > >
> > > 3. Klemp receives 50%
> > > royalties on everything with
> > > his name on it, therefore,
> > > he needs to push out more
> > > and more merchandise.
> > >
> > > 4. I'm thinking that Klemp
> > > wants to set some kind of
> > > a record for writing the most
> > > "books." His followers will
> > > feel proud of him, he will
> > > feel proud, and it gives a
> > > false sense of validation
> > > for what he's writing. Plus,
> > > EKists will buy his redundant
> > > newly packaged merchandise
> > > adding money to his pockets
> > > while taking money from them.
> > > But, they're paying to feel
> > > good, so, if not him it would
> > > be something/someone else...
> > > like family.
> > >
> > > 5. His books manipulate and
> > > hypnotize his followers. It
> > > keeps them living in delusion.
> > >
> > > 6. It's a way to recruit more
> > > people which means more
> > > volunteers and more money.
> > > Remember, Klemp has said
> > > "there's no free lunch in
> > > Eckankar."
> > >
> > > Here's a video from David Lane
> > > that points out that these fake
> > > Masters, like Klemp, simply get
> > > in the way of Soul's freedom to
> > > Be and to grow. Why become
> > > codependent upon a "Mahanta"
> > > or anyone?
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i6RjV4ltY0
> > >
> > > Prometheus
> > >
> >
>

Hello All.
I was recently alerted that
Eckankar sent out a "Tips
for ECK Study" for July 2012
and that the woman mentioned
below had an article in this
ECK pub. I went on another
related site and saw Carol
Choclatt's (sic?) name! She's
an H.I. and EK spokesperson
from Texas but was listed
on this Wellness site.

It kind of makes one wonder.
When this woman states that
she helps or heals people from
long distance is that like Reiki
or what the Canadian con artist
Adam Dreamhealer does?

http://www.onlinewellnessnetwork.com/details.asp?name=Adelheid_Reinhardt_Practic\
e_For_Integrated_Therapies&wpid=191

But doesn't this New Age group/
business conflict with Eckankar
beliefs? What's Klemp up to, or
doesn't he know about her business?

Oh, btw, the article was about,
The Masters' gazes which provide
more... of harmony, of knowingness,
of patience for unknown situations
and of awareness of oneself as a
happy Soul.

Prometheus

Hello Russ and All,
These people have a
number of different
promotions for holistic
health. I have no idea
what Carol's involvement
is.

Reiki is one promotion,
meditation another,
along with acupuncture
and others. There's one
method offered that is
similar to Therapeutic
Touch (the non-touch
method) except they add
the overly used New Age
term "Quantum" which
is supposed to be what
this technique will develop
into in the future. Thus,
one will be able to do long
distance (LD) healing with
this method.

I even saw the term "Avatar
Masters," but it didn't have
much info.

Nowadays it seems that
Klemp has approved of
these Holistic Healing
methods for businesses.
Therefore, if people have
the "credentials," an office,
advertise, and charge money
there's no EK Karma.

If it's "New Age" it's okay
with Klemp regardless of
the snake oil. But, can one
blame Klemp for approving
of healing methods that
have little to no scientific
evidence associated with
them and are difficult
to prove or replicate? Yes!
He's perpetuating a fraud!
This is the same sort of
misguided imaginative
religious belief that he
uses to influence and
misdirect his flock. HK
is like the EK or New
Age version of O'Reilly
on Fox news.

It is interesting that so
many Eckists seem to have
their consciousness scattered
with a hodgepodge of New
Age thought, practices,
and remedies such as Rune
stones, crystals, homeopathy,
etc., etc.

On another note:
It's rather funny, however,
that EKies aren't ever supposed
to use incense when they
meditate/contemplate.
How does that differ from
smelling food already cooked,
or being cooked, or those
scented oil sticks? Incense
is so New Age too! Maybe
Klemp's problem with incense
is that it's also associated
with the Hippie Movement
and the smoking of marijuana
in order to hide the smell
of Weed. Instead, back in
the day, Klemp was going
Wacky, not on tobaccy, but
on swallowing Twitchell's
snake oil.

Prometheus


Russ Rodnick wrote:
I know Carol. I'm sure she is totally
sincere in what she claims. I didn't
know she was into long distance
healing. She used a machine in the
past. Something to do with electrical
frequencies. Have you heard of or
read "A Cure for All Cancers"? It's
along the lines of those methods,
I believe.

Does it really work? Perhaps, in some
cases. One's state of belief is a huge
factor in healing, I believe.

Good Day!

prometheus wrote:

Hello All.
I was recently alerted that
Eckankar sent out a "Tips
for ECK Study" for July 2012
and that the woman mentioned
below had an article in this
ECK pub. I went on another
related site and saw Carol
Choclatt's (sic?) name! She's
an H.I. and EK spokesperson
from Texas but was listed
on this Wellness site.

It kind of makes one wonder.
When this woman states that
she helps or heals people from
long distance is that like Reiki
or what the Canadian con artist
Adam Dreamhealer does?

http://www.onlinewellnessnetwork.com/details.asp?name=Adelheid_Reinhardt_Practic\
\
e_For_Integrated_Therapies&wpid=191

But doesn't this New Age group/
business conflict with Eckankar
beliefs? What's Klemp up to, or
doesn't he know about her business?

Oh, btw, the article was about,
The Masters' gazes which provide
more... of harmony, of knowingness,
of patience for unknown situations
and of awareness of oneself as a
happy Soul.

Prometheus

All you have to do to see eckankar as it really is, is peel back the the thin
plastic seal that the public is allowed to see. In true biblical tradition,
eckankar is a Soddom and Gemorah of new age wackage behind that cultivated,
airbrushed exterior.

Actually, anything and everything New Age goes and Klemp owns it.

He's basically the New Age equivalent of a christian megachurch preacher. Yep.
It's that crazy.



--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer
<jepfeiffer@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn't Eckankar get something from these people that it promotes? I am
thinking that is their angle. 
>
> --- On Wed, 7/18/12, prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
> Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Eckankar and Intergraded Quantum
Wellness Therapies
> To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 6:16 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Hello Russ and All,
> These people have a
> number of different
> promotions for holistic
> health. I have no idea
> what Carol's involvement
> is.
>
> Reiki is one promotion,
> meditation another,
> along with acupuncture
> and others. There's one
> method offered that is
> similar to Therapeutic
> Touch (the non-touch
> method) except they add
> the overly used New Age
> term "Quantum" which
> is supposed to be what
> this technique will develop
> into in the future. Thus,
> one will be able to do long
> distance (LD) healing with
> this method.
>
> I even saw the term "Avatar
> Masters," but it didn't have
> much info.
>
> Nowadays it seems that
> Klemp has approved of
> these Holistic Healing
> methods for businesses.
> Therefore, if people have
> the "credentials," an office,
> advertise, and charge money
> there's no EK Karma.
>
> If it's "New Age" it's okay
> with Klemp regardless of
> the snake oil. But, can one
> blame Klemp for approving
> of healing methods that
> have little to no scientific
> evidence associated with
> them and are difficult
> to prove or replicate? Yes!
> He's perpetuating a fraud!
> This is the same sort of
> misguided imaginative
> religious belief that he
> uses to influence and
> misdirect his flock. HK
> is like the EK or New
> Age version of O'Reilly
> on Fox news.
>
> It is interesting that so
> many Eckists seem to have
> their consciousness scattered
> with a hodgepodge of New
> Age thought, practices,
> and remedies such as Rune
> stones, crystals, homeopathy,
> etc., etc.
>
> On another note:
> It's rather funny, however,
> that EKies aren't ever supposed
> to use incense when they
> meditate/contemplate.
> How does that differ from
> smelling food already cooked,
> or being cooked, or those
> scented oil sticks? Incense
> is so New Age too! Maybe
> Klemp's problem with incense
> is that it's also associated
> with the Hippie Movement
> and the smoking of marijuana
> in order to hide the smell
> of Weed. Instead, back in
> the day, Klemp was going
> Wacky, not on tobaccy, but
> on swallowing Twitchell's
> snake oil.
>
> Prometheus
>
> Russ Rodnick wrote:
> I know Carol. I'm sure she is totally
> sincere in what she claims. I didn't
> know she was into long distance
> healing. She used a machine in the
> past. Something to do with electrical
> frequencies. Have you heard of or
> read "A Cure for All Cancers"? It's
> along the lines of those methods,
> I believe.
>
> Does it really work? Perhaps, in some
> cases. One's state of belief is a huge
> factor in healing, I believe.
>
> Good Day!
>
> prometheus wrote:
>
> Hello All.
> I was recently alerted that
> Eckankar sent out a "Tips
> for ECK Study" for July 2012
> and that the woman mentioned
> below had an article in this
> ECK pub. I went on another
> related site and saw Carol
> Choclatt's (sic?) name! She's
> an H.I. and EK spokesperson
> from Texas but was listed
> on this Wellness site.
>
> It kind of makes one wonder.
> When this woman states that
> she helps or heals people from
> long distance is that like Reiki
> or what the Canadian con artist
> Adam Dreamhealer does?
>
>
http://www.onlinewellnessnetwork.com/details.asp?name=Adelheid_Reinhardt_Practic\
\
> e_For_Integrated_Therapies&wpid=191
>
> But doesn't this New Age group/
> business conflict with Eckankar
> beliefs? What's Klemp up to, or
> doesn't he know about her business?
>
> Oh, btw, the article was about,
> The Masters' gazes which provide
> more... of harmony, of knowingness,
> of patience for unknown situations
> and of awareness of oneself as a
> happy Soul.
>
> Prometheus
>

Not really. But the delusional
leap of faith and the use of
20/20 hindsight by using
common occurrences seems
to be enough for the "proof
of the depth of the (EK) Satsang
experience."


Here's what happen according
to the current July 2012 Tips
For ECK Study:

A guy was attending a Satsang
class on Dreams 2 in an university
area and loll and behold not
many people were showing up.
He attributes this to student's
schedules spiritual challenges
etc. Little does he know that
sporadic Satsang attendance
is common place everywhere.

Anyway, he stopped by the post
office and opened up his July 2011
Tips For ECK Study and read every
article. BTW- Why are we just now
reading about something that happened
a year ago? Klemp's really not on
top of things is he! What's the point
of having a LEM/Mahanta when he
can't keep his followers current and
by repeating their old lame stories.

Anywho, Robert states that this
was unusual for him because
he normally would set it aside
for a quiet moment... under his
pillow. Nah! Kidding on that last
part, although, plenty of EKies
do this!

So, he was drawn to an article
by the Living Fake EK Master
about Our Spiritual Wake Up Calls
which, let's face it, is not a new
topic.

Robert next put the newsletter
into his Discourse folder and,
later, pulled it out to share at
Satsang (the newsletter). The
Arahata laughed and retrieved
her copy of the same July 2011
Tips For ECK Study! Incredible!!!
A Minor Miracle of Sorts, A Sign!

And, she said, she seldom reads
the newsletter the day it arrives
but was drawn to the article about
Our Spiritual Wake Up Calls and
read it that same day! They both
had the same ekperience!

More proof that ECKists grab
at straws to justify their delusion
and "proof of the (SHALLOW)
depth of the Satsang experience."

Prometheus

Hello All,
I was looking at some of Nietzsche's
writing and found this to be very
apropos in regard to discussions
on religion in general and eckankar
specifically. Conscience, Soul, Virtue,
Passion, Attraction, Morality, Health,
Skepticism, Grace, God, Truth, Metaphysics,
Science, etc. is all touched upon.

Selections from Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882/1887)

from: New York: Vantage Books, 1974.

Aphorisms 2, 3, 116, 120, 122, 124, 125, 140, 141, 142, 143, 278, 283, 284, 285,
290, 329, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 354, 356, 372, 373, 374, 377, 380, 382

Aph. 2 The intellectual conscience.—I keep having the same experience and keep
resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable:
the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has
often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as
lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody
looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling
this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their
weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your
doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible
to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given
themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and
without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted
men and the noblest women still belong to this "great majority." But what is
goodheartedness, refinement, or genius to me, when the person who has these
virtues tolerates slack feelings in his faith and judgments and when he does not
account the desire for certainty as his inmost craving and deepest distress—as
that which separates the higher human beings from the lower.

Among some pious people I found a hatred of reason and was well disposed to them
for that; for this at least betrayed their bad intellectual conscience. But to
stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors [discordant concord of
things] and of this whole marvelous uncertainty and rich ambiguity of existence
without questioning, without trembling with the craving and the rapture of such
questioning, without at least hating the person who questions, perhaps even
finding him faintly amusing—that is what I feel /77/ to be contemptible, and
this is the feeling for which I look first in everybody. Some folly keeps
persuading me that every human being has this feeling, simply because he is
human. This is my type of injustice.

Aph. 3 Noble and common.—Common natures consider all noble, magnanimous feelings
inexpedient and therefore first of all incredible. They blink when they hear of
such things and seem to feel like saying: "Surely, there must be some advantage
involved; one cannot see through everything." They are suspicious of the noble
person, as if he surreptitiously sought his advantage. When they are
irresistibly persuaded of the absence of selfish intentions and gains, they see
the noble person as a kind of fool; they despise him in his joy and laugh at his
shining eyes. "How can one enjoy being at a disadvantage? How could one desire
with one's eyes open to be disadvantaged? Some disease of reason must be
associated with the noble affection." Thus they think and sneer, as they sneer
at the pleasure that a madman derives from his fixed idea. What distinguishes
the common type is that it never loses sight of its advantage, and that this
thought of purpose and advantage is even stronger than the strongest instincts;
not to allow these instincts to lead one astray to perform inexpedient acts—that
is their wisdom and pride.

Compared to them, the higher type is more unreasonable, for those who are noble,
magnanimous, and self-sacrificial do succumb to their instincts, and when they
are at their best, their reason pauses. An animal that protects its young at the
risk of its life, or that during the mating period follows the female even into
death, does not think of danger and death; its reason also pauses, because the
pleasure in its young or in the female and the fear of being deprived of this
pleasure dominate it totally: the animal becomes more stupid than usual—just
like those who are noble and magnanimous. They have some feel- /78/ings of
pleasure and displeasure that are so strong that they reduce the intellect to
silence or to servitude: at that point their heart displaces the head, and one
speaks of "passion." (Now and then we also encounter the opposite and, as it
were, the "reversal of passion"; for example, somebody once laid his hand on
Fontenelle's heart, saying to him, "What you have there, dear sir, is another
brain.")

The unreason or counterreason of passion is what the common type despises in the
noble, especially when this passion is directed toward objects whose value seems
quite fantastic and arbitrary. One is annoyed with those who succumb to the
passion of the belly, but at least one comprehends the attraction that plays the
tyrant in such cases. But one cannot comprehend how anyone could risk his health
and honor for the sake of a passion for knowledge. The taste of the higher type
is for exceptions, for things that leave most people cold and seem to lack
sweetness; the higher type has a singular value standard. Moreover, it usually
believes that the idiosyncrasy of its taste is not a singular value standard;
rather, it posits its values and disvalues as generally valid and thus becomes
incomprehensible and impractical. Very rarely does a higher nature retain
sufficient reason for understanding and treating everyday people as such; for
the most part, this type assumes that its own passion is present but kept
concealed in all men, and this belief even becomes an ardent and eloquent faith.
But when such exceptional people do not see themselves as the exception, how can
they ever understand the common type and arrive at a fair evaluation of the
rule? Thus they, too, speak of the folly, inexpediency, and fantasies of
humanity, stunned that the course of the world should be so insane, and puzzled
that it won't own up to what "is needful."—This is the eternal injustice of
those who are noble.

/174/ Aph. 116 Herd instinct.—Wherever we encounter a morality, we also
encounter valuations and an order of rank of human impulses and actions. These
valuations and orders of rank are always expressions of the needs of a community
and herd: whatever benefits it most—and second most, and third most—that is also
considered the first standard for the value of all individuals. Morality trains
the individual to be a function of the herd and to ascribe value to himself only
as a function. The conditions for the preservation of different communities were
very different; hence there were very different moralities. Considering
essential changes in the forms of future herds and communi- /175/ ties, states
and societies, we can prophesy that there will yet be very divergent moralities.
Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

/176/ Aph. 120 Health of the soul.—The popular medical formulation of morality
that goes back to Ariston of Chios [a pupil of Zeno, the founder of Stoicism],
"virtue is the health of the soul," would have to be changed to become useful,
at least to read: "your virtue is the health of your soul." For there is no
health as such, and all attempts to define a /177/ thing that way have been
wretched failures. Even the determination of what is healthy for your body
depends on your goal, your horizon, your energies, your impulses, your errors,
and above all on the ideals and phantasms of your soul. Thus there are
innumerable healths of the body; and the more we allow the unique and
incomparable to raise its head again, and the more we abjure the dogma of the
"equality of men," the more must the concept of a normal health, along with a
normal diet and the normal course of an illness, be abandoned by medical men.
Only then would the time have come to reflect on the health and illness of the
soul, and to find the peculiar virtue of each man in the health of his soul. In
one person, of course, this health could look like its opposite in another
person.

Finally, the great question would still remain whether we can really dispense
with illness—even for the sake of our virtue—and whether our thirst for
knowledge and self-knowledge in particular does not require the sick soul as
much as the healthy, and whether, in brief, the will to health alone, is not a
prejudice, cowardice, and perhaps a bit of very subtle barbarism and
backwardness.

/178/ Aph. 122 Moral skepticism in Christianity.—Christianity, too, has made a
great contribution to the enlightenment, and taught moral skepticism very
trenchantly and effectively, accusing and embittering men, yet with untiring
patience and subtlety; it destroyed the faith in his "virtues" in every single
individual; it led to the disappearance from the face of the earth of all those
paragons of virtue of whom there was no dearth in antiquity—those popular
personalities who, imbued with faith in their own perfection, went about with
the dignity of a great matador.

When we today, trained in this Christian school of skepticism, read the moral
treatises of the ancients—for example, Seneca and Epictetus—we have a diverting
sense of superiority and feel full of secret insights and over-sights: we feel
as embarrassed as if a child were talking before an old man, or an
over-enthusiastic young beauty before La Rochefoucauld [French writer of the
17th century, famous for his unsentimental psychological insights]: we know
better what virtue is.

In the end, however, we have applied this same skepticism also to all religious
states and processes, such as sin, repentance, grace, sanctification, and we
have allowed the worm to dig so deep that now we have the same sense of subtle
superiority and insight when we read any Christian book: we also know religious
feelings better! And it is high time to know them well and to describe them
well, for the pious people of the old faith are dying out, too. Let us save
their image and their type at least for knowledge.

/180/ Aph. 124 In the horizon of the infinite.—We have left the land and have
embarked. We have burned our bridges behind us—indeed, we have gone farther and
destroyed the land behind us. Now, little ship, look out! Beside you is the
ocean: to be sure, it does not always roar, and at times it lies spread out like
silk and gold and reveries of graciousness. But hours will come when you will
realize that it is infinite and that there is nothing more awesome than
infinity. Oh, the poor bird that felt free and now strikes the walls of this
cage! Woe, when you feel /181/ homesick for the land as if it had offered more
freedom—and there is no longer any "land."

Aph. 125 The madman.—Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the
bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek
God! I seek God!"—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing
around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he
lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us?
Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is
God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are
his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave
us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we
unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we
moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward,
forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying
as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it
not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to
light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the
gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine
decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have
killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was
holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death
under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to
clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to
invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves
not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater
deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a
higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too,
were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on
the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he
said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still
wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require
time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require
time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the
most distant stars and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into
several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and
called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after
all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

/190/ Aph. 140 Too Jewish.—If God wished to become an object of love, he should
have given up judging and justice first of all; a judge, even a merciful judge,
is no object of love. The founder of Christianity was not refined enough in his
feelings at this point—being a Jew.

Aph. 141 Too Oriental.—What? A god who loves men, provided only that they
believe in him, and who casts an evil eye and threats upon anyone who does not
believe in this love? What? A love encapsulated in if-clauses attributed to an
almighty god? A love that has not even mastered the feelings of honor and
vindictiveness? How Oriental this is! "If I love you, is that your concern?"
[from Goethe, who refers to Spinoza's dictum, "Whoever loves God must not expect
God to love him in return"] is a sufficient critique of the whole of
Christianity.

/191/ Aph. 142. Frankincense.—Buddha says: "Do not flatter your benefactor!"
Repeat this saying in a Christian church: right away it clears the air of
everything Christian.

Aph. 143. The greatest advantage of polytheism.—For an individual to posit his
own ideal and to derive from it his own law, joys, and rights—that may well have
been considered hitherto as the most outrageous human aberration and as idolatry
itself. The few who dared as much always felt the need to apologize to
themselves, usually by saying: "It wasn't I! Not I! But a god through me." The
wonderful art and gift of creating gods—polytheism—was the medium through which
this impulse could discharge, purify, perfect, and ennoble itself; for
originally it was a very undistinguished impulse, related to stubbornness,
disobedience, and envy. Hostility against this impulse to have an ideal of one's
own was formerly the central law of morality. There was only one norm, man; and
every people thought that it possessed this one ultimate norm. But above and
outside, in some distant overworld, one was permitted to behold a plurality of
norms; one god was not considered a denial of another god, nor blasphemy against
him. It was here that the luxury of individuals was first permitted; it was here
that one first honored the rights of individuals. The invention of gods, heroes,
and overmen of all kinds, as well as near-men and /192/ undermen, dwarfs,
fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, and devils was the inestimable preliminary
exercise for the justification of the egoism and sovereignty of the individual:
the freedom that one conceded to a god in his relation to other gods—one
eventually also granted to oneself in relation to laws, customs, and neighbors.

Monotheism, on the other hand, this rigid consequence of the doctrine of one
normal human type—the faith in one normal god beside whom there are only
pseudo-gods—was perhaps the greatest danger that has yet confronted humanity. It
threatened us with the premature stagnation that, as far as we can see, most
other species have long reached; for all of them believe in one normal type and
ideal for their species, and they have translated the morality of mores
definitively into their own flesh and blood. In polytheism the free-spiriting
and many-spiriting of man attained its first preliminary form—the strength to
create for ourselves our own new eyes—and ever again new eyes that are even more
our own: hence man alone among all the animals has no eternal horizons and
perspectives.

/229/ Aph. 285 Excelsior [Ever upward].—"You will never pray again, never adore
again, never again rest in endless trust; you do not permit yourself to stop
before any ultimate wisdom, ultimate goodness, ultimate power, while
unharnessing your thoughts; you have no perpetual guardian and friend for your
seven solitudes; you live without a view of mountains with snow on their peaks
and fire in their hearts; there is no avenger for you any more nor /230/ any
final improver; there is no longer any reason in what happens, no love in what
will happen to you; no resting place is open any longer to your heart, where it
only needs to find and no longer to seek; you resist any ultimate peace; you
will the eternal recurrence of war and peace: man of renunciation, all this you
wish to renounce? Who will give you the strength for that? Nobody yet has had
this strength!"

There is a lake that one day ceased to permit itself to flow off; it formed a
dam where it had hitherto flown off; and ever since this lake is rising higher
and higher. Perhaps this very renunciation will also lend us the strength needed
to bear this renunciation; perhaps man will rise ever higher as soon as he
ceases to flow out into a god.

/232/ Aph. 290 One thing is needful.—To "give style" to one's character—a great
and rare art! It is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and
weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan until every
one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. Here
a large mass of second nature has been added; there a piece of original nature
has been removed—both times through long practice and daily work at it. Here the
ugly that could not be removed is concealed; there it has been reinterpreted and
made sublime. Much that is vague and resisted shaping has been saved and
exploited for distant views; it is meant to beckon toward the far and
immeasurable. In the end, when the work is finished, it becomes evident how the
constraint of a single taste governed and formed everything large and small.
Whether this taste was good or bad is less important than one might suppose, if
only it was a single taste!

It will be the strong and domineering natures that enjoy their finest gaiety in
such constraint and perfection under a law of their own; the passion of their
tremendous will relents in the face of all stylized nature, of all conquered and
serving nature. Even when they have to build palaces and design gardens they
demur at giving nature freedom.

Conversely, it is the weak characters without power over /233/ themselves that
hate the constraint of style. They feel that if this bitter and evil constraint
were imposed upon them they would be demeaned; they become slaves as soon as
they serve, they hate to serve. Such spirits—and they may be of the first
rank—are always out to shape and interpret their environment as free nature:
wild, arbitrary, fantastic, disorderly, and surprising. And they are well
advised because it is only in this way that they can give pleasure to
themselves. For one thing is needful: that a human being should attain
satisfaction with himself, whether it be by means of this or that poetry and
art, only then is a human being at all tolerable to behold. Whoever is
dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we others will
be his victims, if only by having to endure his ugly sight. For the sight of
what is ugly makes one bad and gloomy.

Aph. 341 The greatest weight.—What, if some day or night a demon were to steal
after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now
live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times
more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and
every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life
will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this
spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself.
The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and
you with it, speck of dust!"

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who
spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have
answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." If
this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps
crush you. The question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more
and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight.
Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave
nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

/279/ Aph. 343 The meaning of our cheerfulness.— The greatest recent event—that
"God is dead,"' that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable—is
already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least
whose eyes—the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this
spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound trust has
been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more like
evening, more mistrustful, stranger, "older." But in the main one may say: The
event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's
capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having
arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this
event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been
undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into
it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and
sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now
impending—who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher
and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom
and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?

Even we born guessers of riddles who are, as it were, waiting on the mountains,
posted between today and tomorrow, stretched in the contradiction between today
and tomorrow, we firstlings and premature births of the coming century, to whom
the shadows that must soon envelop Europe really should have appeared by now—why
is it that even we look forward to the /280/ approaching gloom without any real
sense of involvement and above all without any worry and fear for ourselves? Are
we perhaps still too much under the impression of the initial consequences of
this event—and these initial consequences, the consequences for ourselves, are
quite the opposite of what one might perhaps expect: They are not at all sad and
gloomy but rather like a new and scarcely describable kind of light, happiness,
relief, exhilaration, encouragement, dawn.

Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the
old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with
gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon
appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our
ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of
the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again;
perhaps there has never yet been such an "open sea."—

Aph. 344. How we, too, are still pious.—In science convictions have no rights of
citizenship, as one says with good reason. Only when they decide to descend to
the modesty of hypotheses, of a provisional experimental point of view, of a
regulative fiction, they may be granted admission and even a certain value in
the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction that they remain under
police supervision, under the police of mistrust.—But does this not mean, if you
consider it more precisely, that a conviction may obtain admission to science
only when it ceases to be a conviction? Would it not be the first step in the
discipline of the scientific spirit that one would not permit oneself any more
convictions?

Probably this is so; only we still have to ask: To make it possible for this
discipline to begin, must there not be some prior conviction—even one that is so
commanding and unconditional that it sacrifices all other convictions to itself?
We see that science also rests on a faith; there simply is no science "without
presuppositions." The question whether truth is needed must not only have been
affirmed in advance, but affirmed to such a degree that the principle, the
faith, the conviction finds expression: "Nothing is needed more than truth, and
in relation to it everything else has only second-rate value."

This unconditional will to truth—what is it? Is it the will not to allow oneself
to be deceived? Or is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could be
interpreted in the second way, too—if only the special case "I do not want to
deceive myself" is subsumed under the generalization "I do not want to deceive."
But why not deceive? But why not allow oneself to be deceived?

Note that the reasons for the former principle belong to an altogether different
realm from those for the second. One does not want to allow oneself to be
deceived because one assumes it is harmful, dangerous, calamitous to be
deceived. In this sense, science would be a long-range prudence, a caution, a
utility; but one could object in al fairness: How is that? Is wanting not to
allow oneself to be deceived really less harmful, less langerous, less
calamitous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able
to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditional
mistrust or of the unconditionally trusting? But if both should be required,
much trust as well as much mistrust, from where would science then be permitted
to take its unconditional faith or conviction on which it rests, that truth is
more important than any other thing, including every other conviction? Precisely
this conviction could never have come into being if both tuth and untruth
constantly proved to be useful which is the case. Thus—the faith in science,
which after all exists undniably, cannot owe its origin to such a calculus of
utility; it must have originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and
dangerousness of "the will to truth," of "truth at any price" is proved to it
constantly. "At any price ': how well we understand these words once we have
offered and slaughtered one faith after another on this altar!

Consequently, "will to truth" does not mean "I will not allow [282] myself to be
deceived" but—there is no alternative—"I will not deceive, not even myself"; and
with that we stand on moral ground. For you only have to ask yourself carefully,
"Why do you not want to deceive?" especially if it should seem—and it does
seem!—as if life aimed at semblance, meaning error, deception, simulation,
delusion, self-delusion, and when the great sweep of life has actually always
shown itself to be on the side of the most unscrupulous polytropoi[refers to
Homer's characterization of Odysseus: much travelled, versatile, wily, and
manifold]. Charitably interpreted, such a resolve might perhaps be a
quixotism,[referring to Don Quixote] a minor slightly mad enthusiasm; but it
might also be something more serious, namely, a principle that is hostile to
life and destructive.—"Will to truth"—that might be a concealed will to death.

Thus the question "Why science?" leads back to the moral problem: Why have
morality at all when life, nature, and history are "not moral"? No doubt, those
who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the
faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and
history; and insofar as they affirm this "other [283] world"—look, must they not
by the same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will
have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical
faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge
today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame
lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was
also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.—But what
if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be
divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should
prove to be our most enduring lie?—

Aph. 352. How morality is scarcely dispensable.—A naked human being is generally
a shameful sight. I am speaking of us Europeans (and not even of female
Europeans!). Suppose that, owing to some magician's malice, the most cheerful
company at table suddenly saw itself disrobed and undressed; I believe that not
only their cheerfulness would vanish and that the strongest appetite would be
discouraged—it seems that we Europeans simply cannot dispense with that
masquerade which one calls clothes.

Now consider the way "moral man" is dressed up, how he is veiled behind moral
formulas and concepts of decency—the way our actions are benevolently concealed
by the concepts of duty, virtue, sense of community, honorableness,
self-denial—should the reasons for all this not be equally good? I am not
suggesting that all this is meant to mask human malice and villainy—the wild
animal in us; my idea is, on the contrary, that it is precisely as tame animals
that we are a shameful sight and in need of the moral disguise, that the "inner
man" in Europe is not by a long shot bad enough to show himself without shame
(or to be beautiful). The European disguises himself with morality because he
has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal that has good reasons for being
"tame"; for he is almost an abortion, scarce half made up, weak, awkward.

It is not the ferocity of the beast of prey that requires a moral disguise but
the herd animal with its profound mediocrity, timidity, and boredom with itself.
With morality the European /296/ dresses up—let us confess it!—to look nobler,
more important, more respectable, "divine"—

/302/ Aph. 356 How things will become ever more "artistic" in Europe.— Even
today, in our time of transition when so many factors cease to compel men, the
care to make a living still compels almost all male Europeans to adopt a
particular role, their so-called occupation. A few retain the freedom, a merely
apparent freedom, to choose this role for themselves; for most men it is chosen.
The result is rather strange. As they attain a more advanced age, almost all
Europeans confound themselves with their role; they become the victims of their
own "good performance"; they themselves have forgotten how much accidents,
moods, and caprice disposed of them when the question of their "vocation" was
decided—and how many other roles they might perhaps have been able to play; for
now it is too late. Considered more deeply, the role has actually become
character; and art, nature.

There have been ages when men believed with rigid confidence, even with piety,
in their predestination for precisely this occupation, precisely this way of
earning a living, and simply refused to acknowledge the element of accident,
role, and caprice. With the help of this faith, classes, guilds, and hereditary
trade privileges managed to erect those monsters of social pyramids that
distinguish the Middle Ages and to whose credit one can adduce at least one
thing: durability (and duration is a first-rate value on earth). But there are
opposite ages, really democratic, where people give up this faith, and a certain
cocky faith and opposite point of view advance more and more into the
foreground—the Athenian faith that first becomes noticeable /303/ in the
Periclean age, the faith of the Americans today that is more and more becoming
the European faith as well: The individual becomes convinced that he can do just
about everything and can manage almost any role, and everybody experiments with
himself, improvises, makes new experiments, enjoys his experiments; and all
nature ceases and becomes art.

After accepting this role faith—an artist's faith, if you will— the Greeks, as
is well known, went step for step through a rather odd metamorphosis that does
not merit imitation in all respects: They really became actors. As such they
enchanted and overcame all the world and finally even "the power that had
overcome the world" (for the Graeculus histrio [the little Greek actor]
vanquished Rome, and not, as innocents usually say, Greek culture). But what I
fear, what is so palpable that today one could grasp it with one's hands, if one
felt like grasping it, is that we modern men are even now pretty far along on
the same road; and whenever a human being begins to discover how he is playing a
role and how he can be an actor, he becomes an actor.

With this a new human flora and fauna emerge that could never have grown in more
solid and limited ages; or at least they would be left there "below" under the
ban and suspicion of lacking honor. It is thus that the maddest and most
interesting ages of history always emerge, when the "actors," all kinds of
actors, become the real masters. As this happens, another human type is
disadvantaged more and more and finally made impossible; above all, the great
"architects": The strength to build becomes paralyzed; the courage to make plans
that encompass the distant future is discouraged; those with a genius for
organization become scarce: who would still dare to undertake projects that
would require thousands of years for their completion? For what is dying out is
the fundamental faith that would enable us to calculate, to promise, to
anticipate the future in plans of such scope, and to sacrifice the future to
them—namely, the faith that man has value and meaning only insofar as he is a
stone in a great edifice; and to that end he must be solid first of all, a
"stone"—and above all not an actor! /304/ To say it briefly (for a long time
people will still keep silent about it): What will not be built any more
henceforth, and cannot be built any more, is—a society in the old sense of that
word; to build that, everything is lacking, above all the material. All of us
are no longer material for a society; this is a truth for which the time has
come. It is a matter of indifference to me that at present the most myopic,
perhaps most honest, but at any rate noisiest human type that we have today, our
good socialists, believe, hope, dream, and above all shout and write almost the
opposite. Even now one reads their slogan for the future "free society" on all
tables and walls. Free society? Yes, yes! But surely you know, gentlemen, what
is required for building that? Wooden iron! The well-known wooden iron." And it
must not even be wooden.

Aph. 373. "Science" as a prejudice.—It follows from the laws of order of rankle
that scholars, insofar as they belong to the spiritual middle class, can never
catch sight of the really great problems and question marks; moreover, their
courage and their eyes simply do not reach that far—and above all, their needs
which led them to become scholars in the first place, their inmost assumptions
and desires that things might be such and such, their fears and hopes all come
to rest and are satisfied too soon. Take, for example, that pedantic Englishman,
Herbert Spencer. What makes him "enthuse" in his way and then leads him to draw
a line of hope, a horizon of desirability—that eventual reconciliation of
"egoism and altruism" about which he raves—almost nauseates the likes of us; a
human race that adopted such Spencerian perspectives as its ultimate
perspectives would seem to us worthy of contempt, of annihilation! /335/ But the
mere fact that he had to experience as his highest hope something that to others
appears and may appear only as a disgusting possibility poses a question mark
that Spencer would have been incapable of foreseeing.

It is no different with the faith with which so many materialistic natural
scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have
its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human valuations—a "world of
truth" that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square
little reason. What? Do we really want to permit existence to be degraded for us
like this—reduced to a mere exercise for a calculator and an indoor diversion
for mathematicians? Above all, one should not wish to divest existence of its
rich ambiguity [multi-interpretable character; C.B.] that is a dictate of good
taste, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your
horizon. That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in
which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research
scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?)—an
interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and
touching, and nothing more—that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is
not a mental illness, an idiocy.

Would it not be rather probable that, conversely, precisely the most superficial
and external aspect of existence—what is most apparent, its skin and
sensualization—would be grasped first—and might even be the only thing that
allowed itself to be grasped? A "scientific" interpretation of the world, as you
understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible
interpretations of the world, meaning that it be one of the poorest in meaning.
This thought is intended for the ears and consciences of our mechanists who
nowadays like to pass as philosophers and insist that mechanics is the doctrine
of the first and last laws on which all existence must be based as on a ground
floor. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless
world. Assum- /336/ ing that one estimated the value of a piece of music
according to how much of it could be counted, calculated, and expressed in
formulas: how absurd would such a "scientific" estimation of music be! What
would one have comprehended, understood, grasped of it? Nothing, really nothing
of what is "music" in it!

/342/ Aph. 380 "The wanderer" speaks.—If one would like to see our European
morality for once as it looks from a distance, and if, one would like to measure
it against other moralities, past and future, then one has to proceed like a
wanderer who wants to know how high the towers in a town are: he leaves the
town. "Thoughts about moral prejudices,'' if they are not meant be prejudices
about prejudices, presuppose a position outside morality, some point beyond good
and evil to which one has to rise, climb, or fly—and in the present case at
least a point beyond our good and evil, a freedom from everything "European," by
which I mean the sum of the imperious value judgments that have become part of
our flesh and blood. That one wants to go precisely out there, up there, may be
a minor madness, a peculiar and unreasonable "you must"—for we seekers /343/ for
knowledge also have our idiosyncrasies of "unfree will"—the question is whether
one really can get up there.

This may depend on manifold conditions. In the main the question is how light or
heavy we are—the problem of our "specific gravity." One has to be very light to
drive one's will to knowledge into such a distance and, as it were, beyond one's
time, to create for oneself eyes to survey millennia and, moreover, clear skies
in these eyes. One must have liberated oneself from many things that oppress,
inhibit, hold down, and make heavy precisely us Europeans today. The human being
of such a beyond who wants to behold the supreme measures of value of his time
must first of all "overcome" this time in himself—this is the test of his
strength—and consequently not only his time but also his prior aversion and
contradiction against this time, his suffering from this time, his
un-timeliness, his romanticism.

Re 'performing actions in the name of another':

In our 21st century, performing actions in the name of another is known as
'identity theft', and is usually done for the purposes of criminality and to try
evade responsibility.

Just about sums up the moral code of HK and Ekult!

An ethical person, could never think of performing activity in the name of
another being!
-Postekcon


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. Twitchell first stole
> from "The Path of the Masters"
> and now Klemp is doing
> the same. Every EKist knows
> that to (supposedly) have
> a karma less life is to do
> everything in the name of
> the Sugmad, the ECK, and
> the Mahanta (Klemp).
>
> Of course it's all a lie and
> a religious scam because
> EKists will still see cause
> and effect or bad things
> happening to young and
> good people who are H.I.s
> and are supposed to be
> beyond the reach of karma.
> Still, they get cancer or some
> other malady and die before
> their time. Even V.P.s and
> EK Board members! Plus,
> look at Klemp! He's aging
> very rapidly. BTW- Should
> Joan be coloring her hair?
> Isn't that considered to be
> vain for a 9th Initiate... like
> wearing contact lens versus
> glasses?
>
> Prometheus
>
>
>
> "etznab wrote:
>
> An Eckankartruth repost.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/message/8312
>
> Considering the idea of agents for and of God, the LEM (Living Eck
> Master) was / is apparently NOT called the one and only (as will be
> shown later in Paul Twitchell's writings).
>
> Some excerpts (and trying to correct for typos) from Julian Johnson use
> the word "Master" where Paul Twitchell (or should I say, Rebazar
> Tarzs?) used "Sugmad" (a word of "God").:
>
> [...] Now, if the Master's disciple wishes to escape the creation of
> karma of any sort, let him do whatever he does in the name of the
> Master, acting as his agent. So long as he does that, he will not
> create new karma, because he is acting solely as the agent of another,
> and always the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent. But
> he must do this not merely in a ceremonial way but
> with his entire thought and soul in it. In deep earnest let him do all
> things, every detail of his life, in the name of his Master. This will,
> per necessity, oblige him to do only what he thinks his Master will
> approve of. When he approaches a task or a proposed act, he will
> remember that it is to be done in the name of the Master. He will fix
> his mind on the Master, and then in love and devotion he will
> do the work as a genuine service to the Master and in his name. He will
> remember that nothing is his own. All belongs to the Master because he
> has dedicated all to the Masterâ€" even his mind and his body, as well as
> his property. So he must use them all as if he were using the property
> of another, and use them exactly as he believes the owner would like to
> have him use them. [...] But the main point under consideration here is
> that if the disciple uses his mind and his body and his wealth all in
> the name of the Master, he is not creating any karma. Essentially it is
> the Master acting and not the disciple. The disciple is only the agent
> of the Master, So long as he is acting sincerely and wholeheartedly as
> the agent and disciple of the Master, it is really the Master who is
> acting. When our lives are sincerely dedicated to the path, we give up
> all to the Guru and we think only of doing his commands.
>
> Jesus said: If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.
> (John 8:31)
>
> And this is so regarding the disciples of any Master. Inayat Khan, a
> noted Sufi, says: Give us all you have, and we will give you all we
> possess.
>
> And in that saying there is much wisdom and a great promise. It means
> that if the disciple gives up allâ€" mind, body, wealth and soul to the
> Master, the Master will in return give the disciple such wealth as no
> king ever possessed. The Master will give him riches that surpass all
> else on earth, and in exchange for the surrender of himself to the
> Master, he will gain a freedom that makes him master of a limitless
> empire. It is not that the Master wants the disciple's mind or body or
> property. It is for the benefit of the disciple alone that the Master
> asks him to dedicate all to him. Such a gift on the part of the
> disciple generates more love in the disciple and enables the Master to
> do more for him, and at the same time it protects the disciple from
> making mistakes. [... .]
>
> Based on: The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, Copyright 1939
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
>
> *********
>
> [...] "Now, if you wish to escape the creation of karma of any sort,
> then whatever you do, must be done in the name of the SUGMAD, while
> acting as his agent. So long as you do that, you will not create new
> karma, because you are acting solely as the agent of another, and
> always the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent.
>
> "You must do this not merely in a ceremonial way, but with your entire
> thought and Soul in it. In deep earnest, you must let yourself do all things,
> every detail of your life, in the name of the SUGMAD. This will, by necessity,
> oblige you to do only what you think the SUGMAD intends for you to do.
>
> "This is the psychology which is a part of the philosophy of ECKANKAR.
> Do every action in the name of the SUGMAD, and you have no responsibility
> toward any living creature in the lower worlds, under the plane of the SUGMAD.
>
> "When you approach a task, or a proposed act, you will remember that it
> is to be done in the name of the SUGMAD. You will fix your mind merely
> on the name of the SUGMAD, and in sincerity it will be done as a
> genuine service.
>
> "The SUGMAD does not. The catalytic agent is the ECK power which works
> between you and the SUGMAD. It carries out your action relieving you of
> the responsibility which would otherwise have settled upon your shoulders.
>
> "You must remember that nothing is your own. All belongs to the SUGMAD,
> because all creation belongs to the greatest deity, and you use your
> body, mind and Soul as the property of the SUGMAD. The main point I am
> making here is that if you use your mind and your body and possessions
> in the name of the SUGMAD, you are not creating any karma.
>
> "Essentially it is the SUGMAD acting and not you. You are merely the
> agent of the SUGMAD, while at the same time the SUGMAD is your agent.
> So long as you are acting sincerely and whole-heartedly as the agent of
> the SUGMAD, it is really the SUGMAD who is acting as your agent.
>
> "Gopal Das, noted ECK Master, said that if you give all, you will get
> all. In this saying there is wisdom and a great promise. It means that
> if you give up all, mind, body, wealth and Soul to the SUGMAD, the
> SUGMAD must by ITS own law serve you in return.[... .]
>
> Reportedly, this was Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country, by Paul
> Twitchell, Copyright 1971
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt
>
> *********
>
> Notice that Julian Johnson writes: Inayat Khan, a noted Sufi, says:
> Give us all you have, and we will give you all we possess.
>
> Notice that Rebazar Tarzs says: "Gopal Das, noted ECK Master, said that
> if you give all, you will get all.
>
> *********
>
> Furthermore, In Paul's Twitchell's book there are other agents of the
> Sugmad. Including the Silent Ones and the Spiritual Travelers.
>
> But that's not all. Speaking about the Hindu Trinity, etc., Julian
> Johnson writes:
>
> [...] In fact, these three represent creative currents; they carry the
> creative impulses from the greater powers above. But they have been
> given these individual names as persons. It is well to remember that
> all creative currents may become personal, that is, take individual
> form and assume individual duties. Now these three have generally been
> accepted as the Hindu trinity of gods, most commonly known in their
> pantheon. Millions worship them in spite of their subordinate position.
> They each perform a certain function in carrying on the work of the
> world, in producing human bodies, and in keeping those bodies going.
> They are agents of the supreme power in serving mankind. They are not
> gods to be worshipped. [... .]
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
>
> Paul Twitchell has Rebazar Tarzs say:
>
> [...] In fact, these three represent creative currents. They carry the
> creative impulses from the greater powers above, but they have been
> given these individual names, as persons.
>
> "It is well to remember that all creative currents may become personal;
> that is, take individual form and assume individual duties, as Krishna,
> Christ, Buddha and others. Now these three have generally been accepted
> as the Hindu trinity of Gods, as commonly known in their literature and
> religion. Millions worship them in spite of their subordinate position.
> These powers are the real servants of man. They perform a certain
> function in carrying on the work of the world, in producing human
> bodies, and in keeping these bodies going. They are the agents of the
> SUGMAD in serving mankind, but not gods to be worshipped by the human
> race. [... .]
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt
>
> *********
>
> It looks like Paul Twitchell plagiarized, paraphrased Julian Johnson
> and then changed his source to Rebazar Tarzs, an Eck Master. If this is
> true, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Rebazar Tarzs is a real person
> belonging to a real Eckankar Eck Master lineage. Rather, it looks like
> Rebazar was used as a "literary device" to animate Paul Twitchell's
> writings and the writings he compiled from others. This is more than
> simply plagiarism and paraphrasing. This looks (to me) like the
> creation of fiction, pseudo man-made history and religion.
>
> Somebody show me where this subject is addressed in the Eckankar
> writings.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: etznab <etznab@>
> To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 5:58 pm
> Subject: Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Looking for December 1979 Memo
>
>
> It might be more than just greed.
>
> 1977 was when someone wrote a term paper about Eckankar and Eckankar's
> lawyer responded to David Lane. Quoting:
>
> "With a wide background of study you will find many similarities both
> approximate and exact in many religious statements, history and
> mythology. [....] How did you know Johnson didn't obtain his
> information from Twitchell or Rebazar Tarzs [sic] or some other common
> source? Don't be surprised that many people find the same truths and
> even in the same words, commandments, etc., whether they are
> concepts, stories of events, or levels of God Worlds or consciousness."
>
> [See: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher
> Consciousness, p. 124]
>
> What this tells me is the subject of plagiarism was starting to raise
> it's ugly head in 1977. It wasn't long afterward that Darwin announced
> he and Gail were getting a divorce. Subsequent to that, Darwin started
> looking for someone to take over the "spiritual" side of Eckankar,
> while Darwin managed the "business" side.
>
> Gail would have known about the plagiarisms, IMO, and so would Patti
> Simpson. Gail would also be able to answer questions about the identity
> of Rebazar Tarzs. If it (the truth) wasn't a pretty picture, I suspect
> that neither Gail, nor Patti, nor just about anybody wanted to talk
> about it publicly because it could implicate them in a 'cover-up';
> people might ask, Why are you just mentioning this now?
>
> It looks like so many people bailed and jumped ship. Gail, Patti,
> Bluth, etc., etc. Why would anybody do that if Rebazar and the LEM were
> real deals?
>
> I think people knew a lot more than they wanted to tell the membership.
> Even to this very day. And I also suspect so many people are afraid to
> speak, or question the LEM. Most especially, Eckankar members.
> Afterall, Harold Klemp testified that the LEM was an agent for, and
> agent of God.
>
> Example One: (See: agent for God) - Deposition of Harold Klemp Vol 1,
> May 30, 1984 page 0008 - line 21.
>
> http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=9
>
> Example Two: (See: agent of God) Deposition of Harold Klemp Vol 1, May
> 30, 1984 page 0021 - line 9.
>
> http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=9
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: al_radzik no_reply@yahoogroups.com
> To: eckankartruth eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 4:16 pm
> Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Looking for December 1979 Memo
>
>
> Well, there you go. It's all about greed. It still amazes me that
> Eckankar hasn't fallen flat on its face after the overwhelming evidence
> has proven that it's a big lie. Then again, Casey Anthony was acquitted.
>
> Al
>
> DAVIDP111@ wrote:
>
> Gail was noted in about 1977 that she 'gave' the copyrights to
> eckankar. In reality she got her first $500,000 check from eckankar.
> part of the agreement was they protected her legally for any copyright
> issues that might arise from Paul's writings. She got $94,000 a year
> for life payments starting then, which was a huge amount at that time,
> lifetime health insurance and a gas expense account for life.
>

Wow, I remember reading Nietzche years ago and being struck by certain passages,
but I think I was still in a state of fear, and may still be, of the force of
the herd mentality. As I read this it is as if Nietzche is saying that we have
permission to shatter and question all of our assumptions and to embrace our
questioning nature. Total freedom from any kind of theism and so on. No horizon
and no land to fall back on, only moving forward, and this means being truly
alive. But there is also the noble person who is magnanimous and altruistic, not
because of expectation, but just as some natural passion that shys away from
deception or being deceived.

I bet Nietzche would not be surprised by a New Age Religion like eckankar and
those who follow a living eck master fraud like klemp, gross and twitch. All to
be expected of the dumb mind of the many who choose not to choose.

This quote also shows that he seemed to understand that compassion rather than
self-hate is the way to go. It is an acceptance of our almost child-like
passion, if that makes sense. To be honest, I still struggle with this due to
past conditioning and trauma. I think Neitzche did too and had a psychotic break
when he tried to stop a man from beating a horse in the street. That is where
some level of healing has to occur, beyond just the epiphany of freedom. imo

"For one thing is needful: that a human being should attain
satisfaction with himself, whether it be by means of this or that poetry and
art, only then is a human being at all tolerable to behold. Whoever is
dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we others will
be his victims, if only by having to endure his ugly sight. For the sight of
what is ugly makes one bad and gloomy."

noneckster ; )

--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
> I was looking at some of Nietzsche's
> writing and found this to be very
> apropos in regard to discussions
> on religion in general and eckankar
> specifically. Conscience, Soul, Virtue,
> Passion, Attraction, Morality, Health,
> Skepticism, Grace, God, Truth, Metaphysics,
> Science, etc. is all touched upon.
>
> Selections from Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882/1887)
>
> from: New York: Vantage Books, 1974.
>
> Aphorisms 2, 3, 116, 120, 122, 124, 125, 140, 141, 142, 143, 278, 283, 284,
285, 290, 329, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 354, 356, 372, 373, 374, 377, 380,
382
>
> Aph. 2 The intellectual conscience.—I keep having the same experience and keep
resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable:
the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has
often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as
lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody
looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling
this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their
weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your
doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible
to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given
themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and
without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted
men and the noblest women still belong to this "great majority." But what is
goodheartedness, refinement, or genius to me, when the person who has these
virtues tolerates slack feelings in his faith and judgments and when he does not
account the desire for certainty as his inmost craving and deepest distress—as
that which separates the higher human beings from the lower.
>
> Among some pious people I found a hatred of reason and was well disposed to
them for that; for this at least betrayed their bad intellectual conscience. But
to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors [discordant concord of
things] and of this whole marvelous uncertainty and rich ambiguity of existence
without questioning, without trembling with the craving and the rapture of such
questioning, without at least hating the person who questions, perhaps even
finding him faintly amusing—that is what I feel /77/ to be contemptible, and
this is the feeling for which I look first in everybody. Some folly keeps
persuading me that every human being has this feeling, simply because he is
human. This is my type of injustice.
>
> Aph. 3 Noble and common.—Common natures consider all noble, magnanimous
feelings inexpedient and therefore first of all incredible. They blink when they
hear of such things and seem to feel like saying: "Surely, there must be some
advantage involved; one cannot see through everything." They are suspicious of
the noble person, as if he surreptitiously sought his advantage. When they are
irresistibly persuaded of the absence of selfish intentions and gains, they see
the noble person as a kind of fool; they despise him in his joy and laugh at his
shining eyes. "How can one enjoy being at a disadvantage? How could one desire
with one's eyes open to be disadvantaged? Some disease of reason must be
associated with the noble affection." Thus they think and sneer, as they sneer
at the pleasure that a madman derives from his fixed idea. What distinguishes
the common type is that it never loses sight of its advantage, and that this
thought of purpose and advantage is even stronger than the strongest instincts;
not to allow these instincts to lead one astray to perform inexpedient acts—that
is their wisdom and pride.
>
> Compared to them, the higher type is more unreasonable, for those who are
noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificial do succumb to their instincts, and when
they are at their best, their reason pauses. An animal that protects its young
at the risk of its life, or that during the mating period follows the female
even into death, does not think of danger and death; its reason also pauses,
because the pleasure in its young or in the female and the fear of being
deprived of this pleasure dominate it totally: the animal becomes more stupid
than usual—just like those who are noble and magnanimous. They have some feel-
/78/ings of pleasure and displeasure that are so strong that they reduce the
intellect to silence or to servitude: at that point their heart displaces the
head, and one speaks of "passion." (Now and then we also encounter the opposite
and, as it were, the "reversal of passion"; for example, somebody once laid his
hand on Fontenelle's heart, saying to him, "What you have there, dear sir, is
another brain.")
>
> The unreason or counterreason of passion is what the common type despises in
the noble, especially when this passion is directed toward objects whose value
seems quite fantastic and arbitrary. One is annoyed with those who succumb to
the passion of the belly, but at least one comprehends the attraction that plays
the tyrant in such cases. But one cannot comprehend how anyone could risk his
health and honor for the sake of a passion for knowledge. The taste of the
higher type is for exceptions, for things that leave most people cold and seem
to lack sweetness; the higher type has a singular value standard. Moreover, it
usually believes that the idiosyncrasy of its taste is not a singular value
standard; rather, it posits its values and disvalues as generally valid and thus
becomes incomprehensible and impractical. Very rarely does a higher nature
retain sufficient reason for understanding and treating everyday people as such;
for the most part, this type assumes that its own passion is present but kept
concealed in all men, and this belief even becomes an ardent and eloquent faith.
But when such exceptional people do not see themselves as the exception, how can
they ever understand the common type and arrive at a fair evaluation of the
rule? Thus they, too, speak of the folly, inexpediency, and fantasies of
humanity, stunned that the course of the world should be so insane, and puzzled
that it won't own up to what "is needful."—This is the eternal injustice of
those who are noble.
>
> /174/ Aph. 116 Herd instinct.—Wherever we encounter a morality, we also
encounter valuations and an order of rank of human impulses and actions. These
valuations and orders of rank are always expressions of the needs of a community
and herd: whatever benefits it most—and second most, and third most—that is also
considered the first standard for the value of all individuals. Morality trains
the individual to be a function of the herd and to ascribe value to himself only
as a function. The conditions for the preservation of different communities were
very different; hence there were very different moralities. Considering
essential changes in the forms of future herds and communi- /175/ ties, states
and societies, we can prophesy that there will yet be very divergent moralities.
Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
>
> /176/ Aph. 120 Health of the soul.—The popular medical formulation of morality
that goes back to Ariston of Chios [a pupil of Zeno, the founder of Stoicism],
"virtue is the health of the soul," would have to be changed to become useful,
at least to read: "your virtue is the health of your soul." For there is no
health as such, and all attempts to define a /177/ thing that way have been
wretched failures. Even the determination of what is healthy for your body
depends on your goal, your horizon, your energies, your impulses, your errors,
and above all on the ideals and phantasms of your soul. Thus there are
innumerable healths of the body; and the more we allow the unique and
incomparable to raise its head again, and the more we abjure the dogma of the
"equality of men," the more must the concept of a normal health, along with a
normal diet and the normal course of an illness, be abandoned by medical men.
Only then would the time have come to reflect on the health and illness of the
soul, and to find the peculiar virtue of each man in the health of his soul. In
one person, of course, this health could look like its opposite in another
person.
>
> Finally, the great question would still remain whether we can really dispense
with illness—even for the sake of our virtue—and whether our thirst for
knowledge and self-knowledge in particular does not require the sick soul as
much as the healthy, and whether, in brief, the will to health alone, is not a
prejudice, cowardice, and perhaps a bit of very subtle barbarism and
backwardness.
>
> /178/ Aph. 122 Moral skepticism in Christianity.—Christianity, too, has made a
great contribution to the enlightenment, and taught moral skepticism very
trenchantly and effectively, accusing and embittering men, yet with untiring
patience and subtlety; it destroyed the faith in his "virtues" in every single
individual; it led to the disappearance from the face of the earth of all those
paragons of virtue of whom there was no dearth in antiquity—those popular
personalities who, imbued with faith in their own perfection, went about with
the dignity of a great matador.
>
> When we today, trained in this Christian school of skepticism, read the moral
treatises of the ancients—for example, Seneca and Epictetus—we have a diverting
sense of superiority and feel full of secret insights and over-sights: we feel
as embarrassed as if a child were talking before an old man, or an
over-enthusiastic young beauty before La Rochefoucauld [French writer of the
17th century, famous for his unsentimental psychological insights]: we know
better what virtue is.
>
> In the end, however, we have applied this same skepticism also to all
religious states and processes, such as sin, repentance, grace, sanctification,
and we have allowed the worm to dig so deep that now we have the same sense of
subtle superiority and insight when we read any Christian book: we also know
religious feelings better! And it is high time to know them well and to describe
them well, for the pious people of the old faith are dying out, too. Let us save
their image and their type at least for knowledge.
>
> /180/ Aph. 124 In the horizon of the infinite.—We have left the land and have
embarked. We have burned our bridges behind us—indeed, we have gone farther and
destroyed the land behind us. Now, little ship, look out! Beside you is the
ocean: to be sure, it does not always roar, and at times it lies spread out like
silk and gold and reveries of graciousness. But hours will come when you will
realize that it is infinite and that there is nothing more awesome than
infinity. Oh, the poor bird that felt free and now strikes the walls of this
cage! Woe, when you feel /181/ homesick for the land as if it had offered more
freedom—and there is no longer any "land."
>
> Aph. 125 The madman.—Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in
the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I
seek God! I seek God!"—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing
around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he
lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us?
Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed.
>
> The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is
God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are
his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave
us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we
unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we
moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward,
forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying
as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it
not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to
light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the
gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine
decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have
killed him.
>
> "How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was
holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death
under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to
clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to
invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves
not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater
deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a
higher history than all history hitherto."
>
> Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too,
were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on
the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he
said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still
wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require
time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require
time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the
most distant stars and yet they have done it themselves."
>
> It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way
into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and
called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after
all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"
>
> /190/ Aph. 140 Too Jewish.—If God wished to become an object of love, he
should have given up judging and justice first of all; a judge, even a merciful
judge, is no object of love. The founder of Christianity was not refined enough
in his feelings at this point—being a Jew.
>
> Aph. 141 Too Oriental.—What? A god who loves men, provided only that they
believe in him, and who casts an evil eye and threats upon anyone who does not
believe in this love? What? A love encapsulated in if-clauses attributed to an
almighty god? A love that has not even mastered the feelings of honor and
vindictiveness? How Oriental this is! "If I love you, is that your concern?"
[from Goethe, who refers to Spinoza's dictum, "Whoever loves God must not expect
God to love him in return"] is a sufficient critique of the whole of
Christianity.
>
> /191/ Aph. 142. Frankincense.—Buddha says: "Do not flatter your benefactor!"
Repeat this saying in a Christian church: right away it clears the air of
everything Christian.
>
> Aph. 143. The greatest advantage of polytheism.—For an individual to posit his
own ideal and to derive from it his own law, joys, and rights—that may well have
been considered hitherto as the most outrageous human aberration and as idolatry
itself. The few who dared as much always felt the need to apologize to
themselves, usually by saying: "It wasn't I! Not I! But a god through me." The
wonderful art and gift of creating gods—polytheism—was the medium through which
this impulse could discharge, purify, perfect, and ennoble itself; for
originally it was a very undistinguished impulse, related to stubbornness,
disobedience, and envy. Hostility against this impulse to have an ideal of one's
own was formerly the central law of morality. There was only one norm, man; and
every people thought that it possessed this one ultimate norm. But above and
outside, in some distant overworld, one was permitted to behold a plurality of
norms; one god was not considered a denial of another god, nor blasphemy against
him. It was here that the luxury of individuals was first permitted; it was here
that one first honored the rights of individuals. The invention of gods, heroes,
and overmen of all kinds, as well as near-men and /192/ undermen, dwarfs,
fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, and devils was the inestimable preliminary
exercise for the justification of the egoism and sovereignty of the individual:
the freedom that one conceded to a god in his relation to other gods—one
eventually also granted to oneself in relation to laws, customs, and neighbors.
>
> Monotheism, on the other hand, this rigid consequence of the doctrine of one
normal human type—the faith in one normal god beside whom there are only
pseudo-gods—was perhaps the greatest danger that has yet confronted humanity. It
threatened us with the premature stagnation that, as far as we can see, most
other species have long reached; for all of them believe in one normal type and
ideal for their species, and they have translated the morality of mores
definitively into their own flesh and blood. In polytheism the free-spiriting
and many-spiriting of man attained its first preliminary form—the strength to
create for ourselves our own new eyes—and ever again new eyes that are even more
our own: hence man alone among all the animals has no eternal horizons and
perspectives.
>
> /229/ Aph. 285 Excelsior [Ever upward].—"You will never pray again, never
adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you do not permit yourself to
stop before any ultimate wisdom, ultimate goodness, ultimate power, while
unharnessing your thoughts; you have no perpetual guardian and friend for your
seven solitudes; you live without a view of mountains with snow on their peaks
and fire in their hearts; there is no avenger for you any more nor /230/ any
final improver; there is no longer any reason in what happens, no love in what
will happen to you; no resting place is open any longer to your heart, where it
only needs to find and no longer to seek; you resist any ultimate peace; you
will the eternal recurrence of war and peace: man of renunciation, all this you
wish to renounce? Who will give you the strength for that? Nobody yet has had
this strength!"
>
> There is a lake that one day ceased to permit itself to flow off; it formed a
dam where it had hitherto flown off; and ever since this lake is rising higher
and higher. Perhaps this very renunciation will also lend us the strength needed
to bear this renunciation; perhaps man will rise ever higher as soon as he
ceases to flow out into a god.
>
> /232/ Aph. 290 One thing is needful.—To "give style" to one's character—a
great and rare art! It is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and
weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan until every
one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. Here
a large mass of second nature has been added; there a piece of original nature
has been removed—both times through long practice and daily work at it. Here the
ugly that could not be removed is concealed; there it has been reinterpreted and
made sublime. Much that is vague and resisted shaping has been saved and
exploited for distant views; it is meant to beckon toward the far and
immeasurable. In the end, when the work is finished, it becomes evident how the
constraint of a single taste governed and formed everything large and small.
Whether this taste was good or bad is less important than one might suppose, if
only it was a single taste!
>
> It will be the strong and domineering natures that enjoy their finest gaiety
in such constraint and perfection under a law of their own; the passion of their
tremendous will relents in the face of all stylized nature, of all conquered and
serving nature. Even when they have to build palaces and design gardens they
demur at giving nature freedom.
>
> Conversely, it is the weak characters without power over /233/ themselves that
hate the constraint of style. They feel that if this bitter and evil constraint
were imposed upon them they would be demeaned; they become slaves as soon as
they serve, they hate to serve. Such spirits—and they may be of the first
rank—are always out to shape and interpret their environment as free nature:
wild, arbitrary, fantastic, disorderly, and surprising. And they are well
advised because it is only in this way that they can give pleasure to
themselves. For one thing is needful: that a human being should attain
satisfaction with himself, whether it be by means of this or that poetry and
art, only then is a human being at all tolerable to behold. Whoever is
dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we others will
be his victims, if only by having to endure his ugly sight. For the sight of
what is ugly makes one bad and gloomy.
>
> Aph. 341 The greatest weight.—What, if some day or night a demon were to steal
after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now
live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times
more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and
every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life
will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this
spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself.
The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and
you with it, speck of dust!"
>
> Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who
spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have
answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." If
this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps
crush you. The question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more
and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight.
Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave
nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?
>
> /279/ Aph. 343 The meaning of our cheerfulness.— The greatest recent
event—that "God is dead,"' that the belief in the Christian god has become
unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the
few at least whose eyes—the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough
for this spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound
trust has been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more
like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, "older." But in the main one may say:
The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's
capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having
arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this
event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been
undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into
it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and
sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now
impending—who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher
and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom
and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?
>
> Even we born guessers of riddles who are, as it were, waiting on the
mountains, posted between today and tomorrow, stretched in the contradiction
between today and tomorrow, we firstlings and premature births of the coming
century, to whom the shadows that must soon envelop Europe really should have
appeared by now—why is it that even we look forward to the /280/ approaching
gloom without any real sense of involvement and above all without any worry and
fear for ourselves? Are we perhaps still too much under the impression of the
initial consequences of this event—and these initial consequences, the
consequences for ourselves, are quite the opposite of what one might perhaps
expect: They are not at all sad and gloomy but rather like a new and scarcely
describable kind of light, happiness, relief, exhilaration, encouragement, dawn.
>
> Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that
"the old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with
gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon
appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our
ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of
the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again;
perhaps there has never yet been such an "open sea."—
>
> Aph. 344. How we, too, are still pious.—In science convictions have no rights
of citizenship, as one says with good reason. Only when they decide to descend
to the modesty of hypotheses, of a provisional experimental point of view, of a
regulative fiction, they may be granted admission and even a certain value in
the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction that they remain under
police supervision, under the police of mistrust.—But does this not mean, if you
consider it more precisely, that a conviction may obtain admission to science
only when it ceases to be a conviction? Would it not be the first step in the
discipline of the scientific spirit that one would not permit oneself any more
convictions?
>
> Probably this is so; only we still have to ask: To make it possible for this
discipline to begin, must there not be some prior conviction—even one that is so
commanding and unconditional that it sacrifices all other convictions to itself?
We see that science also rests on a faith; there simply is no science "without
presuppositions." The question whether truth is needed must not only have been
affirmed in advance, but affirmed to such a degree that the principle, the
faith, the conviction finds expression: "Nothing is needed more than truth, and
in relation to it everything else has only second-rate value."
>
> This unconditional will to truth—what is it? Is it the will not to allow
oneself to be deceived? Or is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth
could be interpreted in the second way, too—if only the special case "I do not
want to deceive myself" is subsumed under the generalization "I do not want to
deceive." But why not deceive? But why not allow oneself to be deceived?
>
> Note that the reasons for the former principle belong to an altogether
different realm from those for the second. One does not want to allow oneself to
be deceived because one assumes it is harmful, dangerous, calamitous to be
deceived. In this sense, science would be a long-range prudence, a caution, a
utility; but one could object in al fairness: How is that? Is wanting not to
allow oneself to be deceived really less harmful, less langerous, less
calamitous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able
to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditional
mistrust or of the unconditionally trusting? But if both should be required,
much trust as well as much mistrust, from where would science then be permitted
to take its unconditional faith or conviction on which it rests, that truth is
more important than any other thing, including every other conviction? Precisely
this conviction could never have come into being if both tuth and untruth
constantly proved to be useful which is the case. Thus—the faith in science,
which after all exists undniably, cannot owe its origin to such a calculus of
utility; it must have originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and
dangerousness of "the will to truth," of "truth at any price" is proved to it
constantly. "At any price ': how well we understand these words once we have
offered and slaughtered one faith after another on this altar!
>
> Consequently, "will to truth" does not mean "I will not allow [282] myself to
be deceived" but—there is no alternative—"I will not deceive, not even myself";
and with that we stand on moral ground. For you only have to ask yourself
carefully, "Why do you not want to deceive?" especially if it should seem—and it
does seem!—as if life aimed at semblance, meaning error, deception, simulation,
delusion, self-delusion, and when the great sweep of life has actually always
shown itself to be on the side of the most unscrupulous polytropoi[refers to
Homer's characterization of Odysseus: much travelled, versatile, wily, and
manifold]. Charitably interpreted, such a resolve might perhaps be a
quixotism,[referring to Don Quixote] a minor slightly mad enthusiasm; but it
might also be something more serious, namely, a principle that is hostile to
life and destructive.—"Will to truth"—that might be a concealed will to death.
>
> Thus the question "Why science?" leads back to the moral problem: Why have
morality at all when life, nature, and history are "not moral"? No doubt, those
who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the
faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and
history; and insofar as they affirm this "other [283] world"—look, must they not
by the same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will
have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical
faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge
today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame
lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was
also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.—But what
if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be
divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should
prove to be our most enduring lie?—
>
> Aph. 352. How morality is scarcely dispensable.—A naked human being is
generally a shameful sight. I am speaking of us Europeans (and not even of
female Europeans!). Suppose that, owing to some magician's malice, the most
cheerful company at table suddenly saw itself disrobed and undressed; I believe
that not only their cheerfulness would vanish and that the strongest appetite
would be discouraged—it seems that we Europeans simply cannot dispense with that
masquerade which one calls clothes.
>
> Now consider the way "moral man" is dressed up, how he is veiled behind moral
formulas and concepts of decency—the way our actions are benevolently concealed
by the concepts of duty, virtue, sense of community, honorableness,
self-denial—should the reasons for all this not be equally good? I am not
suggesting that all this is meant to mask human malice and villainy—the wild
animal in us; my idea is, on the contrary, that it is precisely as tame animals
that we are a shameful sight and in need of the moral disguise, that the "inner
man" in Europe is not by a long shot bad enough to show himself without shame
(or to be beautiful). The European disguises himself with morality because he
has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal that has good reasons for being
"tame"; for he is almost an abortion, scarce half made up, weak, awkward.
>
> It is not the ferocity of the beast of prey that requires a moral disguise but
the herd animal with its profound mediocrity, timidity, and boredom with itself.
With morality the European /296/ dresses up—let us confess it!—to look nobler,
more important, more respectable, "divine"—
>
> /302/ Aph. 356 How things will become ever more "artistic" in Europe.— Even
today, in our time of transition when so many factors cease to compel men, the
care to make a living still compels almost all male Europeans to adopt a
particular role, their so-called occupation. A few retain the freedom, a merely
apparent freedom, to choose this role for themselves; for most men it is chosen.
The result is rather strange. As they attain a more advanced age, almost all
Europeans confound themselves with their role; they become the victims of their
own "good performance"; they themselves have forgotten how much accidents,
moods, and caprice disposed of them when the question of their "vocation" was
decided—and how many other roles they might perhaps have been able to play; for
now it is too late. Considered more deeply, the role has actually become
character; and art, nature.
>
> There have been ages when men believed with rigid confidence, even with piety,
in their predestination for precisely this occupation, precisely this way of
earning a living, and simply refused to acknowledge the element of accident,
role, and caprice. With the help of this faith, classes, guilds, and hereditary
trade privileges managed to erect those monsters of social pyramids that
distinguish the Middle Ages and to whose credit one can adduce at least one
thing: durability (and duration is a first-rate value on earth). But there are
opposite ages, really democratic, where people give up this faith, and a certain
cocky faith and opposite point of view advance more and more into the
foreground—the Athenian faith that first becomes noticeable /303/ in the
Periclean age, the faith of the Americans today that is more and more becoming
the European faith as well: The individual becomes convinced that he can do just
about everything and can manage almost any role, and everybody experiments with
himself, improvises, makes new experiments, enjoys his experiments; and all
nature ceases and becomes art.
>
> After accepting this role faith—an artist's faith, if you will— the Greeks, as
is well known, went step for step through a rather odd metamorphosis that does
not merit imitation in all respects: They really became actors. As such they
enchanted and overcame all the world and finally even "the power that had
overcome the world" (for the Graeculus histrio [the little Greek actor]
vanquished Rome, and not, as innocents usually say, Greek culture). But what I
fear, what is so palpable that today one could grasp it with one's hands, if one
felt like grasping it, is that we modern men are even now pretty far along on
the same road; and whenever a human being begins to discover how he is playing a
role and how he can be an actor, he becomes an actor.
>
> With this a new human flora and fauna emerge that could never have grown in
more solid and limited ages; or at least they would be left there "below" under
the ban and suspicion of lacking honor. It is thus that the maddest and most
interesting ages of history always emerge, when the "actors," all kinds of
actors, become the real masters. As this happens, another human type is
disadvantaged more and more and finally made impossible; above all, the great
"architects": The strength to build becomes paralyzed; the courage to make plans
that encompass the distant future is discouraged; those with a genius for
organization become scarce: who would still dare to undertake projects that
would require thousands of years for their completion? For what is dying out is
the fundamental faith that would enable us to calculate, to promise, to
anticipate the future in plans of such scope, and to sacrifice the future to
them—namely, the faith that man has value and meaning only insofar as he is a
stone in a great edifice; and to that end he must be solid first of all, a
"stone"—and above all not an actor! /304/ To say it briefly (for a long time
people will still keep silent about it): What will not be built any more
henceforth, and cannot be built any more, is—a society in the old sense of that
word; to build that, everything is lacking, above all the material. All of us
are no longer material for a society; this is a truth for which the time has
come. It is a matter of indifference to me that at present the most myopic,
perhaps most honest, but at any rate noisiest human type that we have today, our
good socialists, believe, hope, dream, and above all shout and write almost the
opposite. Even now one reads their slogan for the future "free society" on all
tables and walls. Free society? Yes, yes! But surely you know, gentlemen, what
is required for building that? Wooden iron! The well-known wooden iron." And it
must not even be wooden.
>
> Aph. 373. "Science" as a prejudice.—It follows from the laws of order of
rankle that scholars, insofar as they belong to the spiritual middle class, can
never catch sight of the really great problems and question marks; moreover,
their courage and their eyes simply do not reach that far—and above all, their
needs which led them to become scholars in the first place, their inmost
assumptions and desires that things might be such and such, their fears and
hopes all come to rest and are satisfied too soon. Take, for example, that
pedantic Englishman, Herbert Spencer. What makes him "enthuse" in his way and
then leads him to draw a line of hope, a horizon of desirability—that eventual
reconciliation of "egoism and altruism" about which he raves—almost nauseates
the likes of us; a human race that adopted such Spencerian perspectives as its
ultimate perspectives would seem to us worthy of contempt, of annihilation!
/335/ But the mere fact that he had to experience as his highest hope something
that to others appears and may appear only as a disgusting possibility poses a
question mark that Spencer would have been incapable of foreseeing.
>
> It is no different with the faith with which so many materialistic natural
scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have
its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human valuations—a "world of
truth" that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square
little reason. What? Do we really want to permit existence to be degraded for us
like this—reduced to a mere exercise for a calculator and an indoor diversion
for mathematicians? Above all, one should not wish to divest existence of its
rich ambiguity [multi-interpretable character; C.B.] that is a dictate of good
taste, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your
horizon. That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in
which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research
scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?)—an
interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and
touching, and nothing more—that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is
not a mental illness, an idiocy.
>
> Would it not be rather probable that, conversely, precisely the most
superficial and external aspect of existence—what is most apparent, its skin and
sensualization—would be grasped first—and might even be the only thing that
allowed itself to be grasped? A "scientific" interpretation of the world, as you
understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible
interpretations of the world, meaning that it be one of the poorest in meaning.
This thought is intended for the ears and consciences of our mechanists who
nowadays like to pass as philosophers and insist that mechanics is the doctrine
of the first and last laws on which all existence must be based as on a ground
floor. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless
world. Assum- /336/ ing that one estimated the value of a piece of music
according to how much of it could be counted, calculated, and expressed in
formulas: how absurd would such a "scientific" estimation of music be! What
would one have comprehended, understood, grasped of it? Nothing, really nothing
of what is "music" in it!
>
> /342/ Aph. 380 "The wanderer" speaks.—If one would like to see our European
morality for once as it looks from a distance, and if, one would like to measure
it against other moralities, past and future, then one has to proceed like a
wanderer who wants to know how high the towers in a town are: he leaves the
town. "Thoughts about moral prejudices,'' if they are not meant be prejudices
about prejudices, presuppose a position outside morality, some point beyond good
and evil to which one has to rise, climb, or fly—and in the present case at
least a point beyond our good and evil, a freedom from everything "European," by
which I mean the sum of the imperious value judgments that have become part of
our flesh and blood. That one wants to go precisely out there, up there, may be
a minor madness, a peculiar and unreasonable "you must"—for we seekers /343/ for
knowledge also have our idiosyncrasies of "unfree will"—the question is whether
one really can get up there.
>
> This may depend on manifold conditions. In the main the question is how light
or heavy we are—the problem of our "specific gravity." One has to be very light
to drive one's will to knowledge into such a distance and, as it were, beyond
one's time, to create for oneself eyes to survey millennia and, moreover, clear
skies in these eyes. One must have liberated oneself from many things that
oppress, inhibit, hold down, and make heavy precisely us Europeans today. The
human being of such a beyond who wants to behold the supreme measures of value
of his time must first of all "overcome" this time in himself—this is the test
of his strength—and consequently not only his time but also his prior aversion
and contradiction against this time, his suffering from this time, his
un-timeliness, his romanticism.
>

Karma as taught by Ekult is very skewed and not the 'big picture'!
Should one choose to believe in karma, it maybe better understood within
contexts of 'randomity' and 'quantum' theories.

For me the jury is out.
-Postekcon


--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
<prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Harrison,
> Thanks! I enjoyed reading your
> comments. That's an interesting
> paraphrase of the Dali Llama:
> "being illusory doesn't mean it's
> not real, but rather its importance
> is illusory.
>
> It's quite a play on words which
> Buddhism does in order to get
> people to think with depth via
> creative introspection.
>
> However, I don't really agree with
> the second part (the twist) of the
> statement. To me, "it's importance"
> is Not Always "illusionary" due to
> the illusion's powerful mental
> potential to manifest and become
> "real" and to create circumstances
> that would end our physical existence
> or well being. For me, passiveness
> is self-deceit and non-attachment
> is simply a coping/survival technique
> (stress reducer) designed for the
> mind.
>
> However, various natural stress
> reducers do have the potential
> to alter our perspectives and to
> give us real insights into our individual
> Real Selves and that of this Real
> Life Experience and Purpose.
>
> Maybe, we are simply taking another
> step for the future development,
> or decline, of the Human Race and
> towards its full Mental potential.
> That's our part and our involvement
> with what we can call the Universal
> Mind's Potential. Perhaps, too, we
> are being guided, unconsciously,
> by this innate potential via video
> games and other imaginative and
> technological advances.
>
> Prometheus
>
>
> "harrisonferrel" wrote:
> Like so many other ideas, Karma doesn't hold water and seems to be a
bastardized
> explanation of the way life works. It seems to have its origins in mythology
and
> you'd need to read Joseph Campbell for an informed and intelligent look at the
> idea.
>
> Of course, Eckankar, as a notorious bullshit organization, goes to town with
the
> karma idea. It's just another in a series of things people can latch onto by
> believing that their own mental impressions and fantasies have root in
reality.
>
> I was recently watching a documentary on the Buddha for the third time.
> Curiously, Siddharta had an epiphany that life/nature goes through a cycle of
> being born, living, experiencing old age then decline, then at last dying. In
> the world of nature, rebirth is the next round of life that appears. This in
no
> way suggests it's the same "soul" that reappears, but rather it's the way life
> works, in a cycle. And Siddharta realized that he was part of this cycle and
> there was no reason to keep trying to escape it. Instead he realized it's
> important to embrace life and these realities. All else is self-deceit. The
> illusion is that life and all of its problems has a basis in longevity and
real
> importance. To paraphrase the Dalai Llama, being illusory doesn't mean it's
not
> real, but rather its importance is illusory.
>
> Eckankar is all about manipulation of people, facts and world teachings. If
> Harold, Twitch or any of the other Disney characters had an conscience, they
> would be ashamed of what they do to people in the way of this manipulation.
>

Hello All,
I was thinking about some
of the lies we were told
while in Eckankar and of
how and why we accepted
them so readily.

For instance, there's the
long standing rule that
EKists don't proselytize,
in part, due to the Law
of Non-Interference.

But, all this actually meant
is that ECKists don't go
door-to-door like Mormons
and Jehovah Witnesses.
Proselytizing means trying
to:

"proselytize |ˈpräsələˌtīz|
verb [ with obj. ]
convert or attempt to convert
(someone) from one religion,
belief, or opinion to another:

the program did have a tremendous
evangelical effect, proselytizing
many | [ no obj. ] : proselytizing

for converts | (as noun proselytizing) :
no amount of proselytizing was
going to change their minds.

• advocate or promote (a belief
or course of action): Davis wanted
to share his concept and proselytize
his ideas."

Leaving books and brochures
in laundromats or bookmarks
in books at libraries and in
bookstores is not following
the Law of Non-Interference.
Neither is having EK Internet
Videos or booths at Psychic
Fairs.

BTW- Let me speak about another
thought. Does Klemp have a sense
of divine intercession? Does he sit
in this Eden Prairie (mahanta) man
cave and HU/pray for the spiritual
evolution of mankind or for world
peace? Many religious leaders and
Maharishis who don't go out and
preach at least pray for intercession.
What does Klemp do except write
trashy books and promote his $$$
religious wares via his volunteer
grass roots sales staff and via the
pros at the ESC.



Prometheus