It's kind of like the power of Suggestion. We quite often see what we
expect to see or what we have been conditioned to see, hear, feel.
Also, it may simply be wishful thinking or what we want based on
denial of what really is. Children do this a lot as a way to cope. It
is normal to do this, but in a Cult environment the members are
encouraged to create a world that is unreal. When you leave the Cult,
at first it is scary because all of this delusion starts to go blank,
like the invisible picture. For myself, I learned a form of meditation
that involves just letting go and observing the flow of thoughts and
feelings, 'til they just dissolve and disappear and my mind and body
go into a state of deep relaxation that feels very free and spontaneous.

What Eckankult does in their "spiritual exercises" is the opposite of
freedom. It is a practice in self-conditioning and an induced trance
state based on preconceived Cult thinking, the worst of which is
Harold Klemp's face as your object of devotion. Yuck!

QUESTION AUTHORITY!!!

Tygerpurr ; )

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
>
>
Re: Images of our own making


It seems I can't spell. Correcting the title, for what its worth.

"There was once a painter who traveled into the cordillera in order
to paint an invisible picture of Christ. When he finished, the local
Indians scrambled up the rocks to examine it and found that it was,
in fact, a picture of Viracocha. A Chinaman passing by went up to
see what it was that was causing such excitement and found to his
surprise that on the rock was a picture of the Buddha. The painter
stuck to his assertion that it was Christ who was invisibly
portrayed, and a loud and rancorous argument developed. In the midst
of the altercation one of the Indians noticed that the picture had
erased itself.

The truth is that the mountains are a place where you can find
whatever you want just by looking, as long as you remember that they
do not suffer fools gladly and particularly dislike those with
preconceived ideas."

-Louis de Bernieres, in The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts

"The oldest technique of keeping the loyalty of the chela by many
teachers is with fear."

Paul Twitchell, Illuninated Way Letters, 1968

Let's not kid ourselves, this does indicate PT was aware of this
technique. He used this technique to entrap his own followers. I hereby
award PT with the "sour grapes" award.

Paul Twitchel wrote: "The oldest technique of keeping the loyalty of
the chela by many teachers is with fear. This is true in the methods
of those teachers on the lower plane levels. Because they grow afraid
of losing their chelas to a Master on the higher level, the old fear
tactics will be drummed into those who desire to move away from the
psychic plane elements into the God planes. These threats are very
common. They usually go like this:"

[Note: I've inserted numbers to itemize PT's three methods, but the
text is by PT]

[1] "If you leave me, you will get caught in the astral and won't get
out."

[2] "Another cliché is: 'I've got the only path and if you leave it,
you're in deep trouble.' "

[3] "Another one is: 'I'm the true Master, and having initiated you,
will be with you until the end of eternity. I'm your Master
always.' "


[PT provided many examples of his own use of these fear methods. The
quotes below were found in his published works. The difference
between off the cuff answers and those published is that the latter
are statements PT had ample time to ponder and consider, and are much
more definitive since he knew these would be his published words:]


QUESTION: WHAT HAPPENS, PT, IF ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS LEAVES ECKANKAR?


[TECHNIQUE ONE - "IF YOU LEAVE ME YOU WILL BE CAUGHT IN THE ASTRAL."]


"Should physical death come before man finds liberation, he will go
through a period in the Astral world {...}until he is given rebirth
again." "He does this over and over again until one day he meets
again with the Living ECK Master."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 132


"If any Soul who is a chela or initiate leaves the path of Eck for
another way to the heavenly worlds he must expect his karma to be
extended. His karmic burden increases as he gathers more, going
through incarnation after incarnation, He will again someday meet
with the Living Eck Master, when ready."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 97


"No one can get his release from the net of karma without the Living
ECK Master."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 140


"Should Soul cease to spiritually unfold It will, after the death of
the body, go into the seven worlds of Avernus, the dark realm of the
Astral Plane where many evil Souls must spend time." {...} "After he
has met the Living ECK Master he will never have to reincarnate on
this plane nor in any of the underworld planes."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 146


"If a chela decides to leave the Living ECK Master on his own without
first discussing it, then he has problems to face which are more
severe than ever. He has left the ECK Master and gone into the
wilderness alone to face the wild beasts which will devour him."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 172




QUESTION: DO ECK MASTERS REPRESENT THE ONLY WAY TO GOD?


[TECHNIQUE TWO - "I HAVE THE ONLY PATH AND IF YOU LEAVE IT YOU WILL
BE IN TROUBLE." ]


"It is when the chela leaves the protection and guidance of the
Living ECK Master that Kal Niranjan will pounce upon him and start
his negative works."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 172


"There is no way to the SUGMAD except through the MahantA."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 29


"Only the Living ECK Master has the power to initiate souls and take
them to the regions of light."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 64


"Should the Soul not be an initiate of the Living ECK Master, It must
stand before Dharam Raya, the judge of the dead, and receive its just
reward."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 73


"It is not possible to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except
through the teachings of ECKANKAR."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page  96


"The Eckist recognizes no other religion, although such exists in
this physical world. Nor does he recognize any metaphysical teaching,
occultism, or any worldly theological faiths, creeds, and cults, all
of which claim to be the way to God."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 98


"All others who claim they are the messengers, preachers, or the
voice of God do so for some materialistic motive."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 105


"[All other religions] are the offshoots of ECKANKAR, the original
source of all life."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 113


"The Living ECK Master embraces all humanity because he is the only
channel that can do so."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 16


"No one can reach God practicing any path except devotion to the
SUGMAD through the Mahanta."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 136


"He shall wander about the face of the earth life after life,
incarnation after incarnation, until that day when he shall meet with
the Living ECK Master."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 136


"The Living ECK Master is the only one who truly knows what Soul is."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 150


QUESTION: ARE YOUR STUDENTS FREE TO LEAVE ECKANKAR?


[TECHNIQUE THREE - "I AM THE MASTER AND ONCE I HAVE INITIATED YOU,
YOU WILL BE WITH ME FOREVER."]


"At no time does the Mahanta ever leave one who has become his
charge, regardless of whether or not the chela tries to break his
ties."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 65


"Those who need the Living ECK Master will always stay with him, but
those who feel that they are beyond this are wrong in their thinking.
They have not examined the truth, and will go afoul of the illusions
established by the Kal"


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 170


Kent

The following was my original post at A.R.E.:

In the first passage, PT speaks of fear methods. In the following
passage, PT proceeds to use the very fear methods he denounced:


"The oldest technique of keeping the loyalty of the chela by many
teachers is with fear. This is true in the methods of those teachers
on the lower plane levels. Because they grow afraid of losing their
chelas to a Master on the higher level, the old fear tactics will be
drummed into those who desire to move away from the psychic plane
elements into the God planes. These threats are very common. They
usually go like this: "If you leave me, you will get caught in the
astral and won't get out." Another cliché is: "I've got the only path
and if you leave it, you're in deep trouble." Another one is: "I'm
the true Master, and having initiated you, will be with you until the
end of eternity. I'm your Master always." These are a few of the
techniques of fear used by most teachers of the psychic worlds. We
can easily recognize them.


"The very  fact that they use such methods to hold their students
shows they are afraid of losing out to a true Master. The real Master
never drops any hints of reprisal to anyone who shows freedom of will
and the capability of thinking for himself. He never at any time says
anything to the chela unless asked."


-Paul Twitchell, The Illuminated Way Letters, March 1968, published
in The Illuminated Way Letters, 1966-1971, copyright 1975 Gail
Twitchell Gross


[In PT's next quote, he proceeds to use the very fear methods he
scorned in the previous passage]:


"As the instrument for this greatest spiritual power within all
universes, we must take hold of the basic idea that we are the chosen
people. This makes us different from all the others in this world,
and we must look upon ourselves as heirs to the keys to heaven. We
are the kings and queens of the earthly realm, appointed by the
divine SUGMAD to take our places here as ITS representatives. We are
to act as Godly instruments through which the ECK flows to the world
and uplifts humanity.


"By divine right we have become the chosen people. And, because we
have accepted the responsibility of carrying out the will of god, it
is necessary that that we have the faith and knowledge of being the
people of God. Those who do not belong in the spiritual works of ECK
have either rejected this path or do not know of it. They will have
to wait until the time is ready for each to accept the Mahanta, the
Living ECK Master.


"These people are in a sort of limbo, whether it is in the past or
modern times. They will go through lifetime after lifetime wondering
why they must suffer, for the Angel of Death does not listen to their
cries for mercy but places them back into another life, to pay for
their karma."


"By the Eck alone the chela can transcend all the lower regions and
rise into the heavenly world of the Sugmad. Without the Mahanta, the
Living Eck Master, no one can attain conscious union with the stream
of pure life, nor can he go further than the first region of light,
which is the astral."


-Paul Twitchell, The Spiritual Notebook


KENT RESPONDS:


So, Twitchell knew all along exactly what he was doing with the
threats he, himself, made to those who would leave eckankar. It was
deliberate, and it was deceptive. He says in the first quote how a
master goes about trapping a chela through fear, then he uses the
same fear tactic himself. Note that one of his examples of a fear
tactic is to threaten existence no higher than the astral plane,
which is exactly what he states will be the fate of those who do not
follow the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master.


Let's consider a few things. In the first excerpt Twitchell writes in
his monthly letter to the membership about masters using fear tactics
to trap chelas. He encourages chelas to beware of sly, lowly teachers
who want to draw them away from a supposedly higher master,
presumably himself, considering the overall context. He made various
comments similar to this in other writings, too, which indicates he
was concerned with keeping his chelas from leaving him to follow
other masters.


In the second excerpt from the Spiritual Notebook, he includes
warnings of what will befall those who reject eckankar. The warnings
are structured identically to the fear tactics he earlier described.


In both instances, the statements were designed to keep his chelas
from wandering from eckankar.  In the first instance, he warns of the
dangers of lower masters using fear tactics to draw away and hold the
gullible, unthinking chela. In the second instance, he uses the same
fear tactic himself to warn the unwary chela of the dangers of
rejecting eckankar. It should be obvious that both are examples of
the use of fear to hold chelas. To state this in another way, in one
instance he instills apprehension of fear tactics, and in the second
instance he reverses this by using fear tactics to create
apprehension. They are both the same, really.


If Twitchell's strategy was to create a maze of seemingly
contradictory fear tactics in a kind of rhetorical counterpoint to
one another, to set chelas off-guard as to what his true intentions
were, it has worked beautifully, as is illustrated in the two
responses by the chelas above. Their argument is, no authentic master
would first warn of other masters using fear tactics, and then
brazenly use the very same tactics! Yet it is precisely due to the
fact that the notoriously, unabashed Twitchell did exactly this, that
the eckists have been supplied by him with an argument to the
contrary! His clever designs to bind have worked.


The fact that Twitchell wrote of the fear tactics, to the point of
including several examples, proves that he was well aware of the
concept of their use, and the effects of their use in retaining a
hold on chelas. His warning also indicates he believed the tactics
can succeed in their intended purpose. So when he warns of the
terrible fate of chelas who go astray, we are to believe he wasn't
aware that this matched his very own definition of a fear tactic? We
are to believe that because he described fear tactics, it would make
any use of them himself, unlikely? It is far more likely this is
exactly what he hoped we would believe. Twitchell was quite clever
with this. He was attempting to build into his writings immunity to
criticism. And, as incredible as it would seem, the ploy has worked
surprisingly well, as can be seen in the chelas responses above.


Through this device of double-speak, he keeps his chelas in a state
of confusion, which eventually leads to the necessity of either
setting aside critical thinking of the master's writings in order to
maintain what is to the chela the extremely precious, indispensable
master/ chela relationship, on which the chela has become dependent,
or breaking off the relationship, which may prove to be an extremely
difficult, if not impossible, choice for the chela.


However he learned of these insidious control methods, whether he
found them in other teachings he studied, such as Scientology, or
stumbled upon them by trial and error, there is no doubt, based on
the excerpts included here, that it was deliberate. That there are
chelas who believe otherwise merely serves to give evidence to the
efficacy of the methods.

Kent

I posted this recently on A.R.E. There may be some duplication of the
quotes from some of my other posts:


QUESTION: Would you declare that Eckankar offers the only path to
God?


"Since everything in this physical universe is controlled by Kal
Niranjan (the negative power), we have nothing that can say it
represents the ultimate in the perfect sense, except ECKANKAR (sic)."


-Sharyat Ki Sugmad, Book 1, chapter 6, by Paul Twitchell


"By the Eck alone the chela can transcend all the lower regions and
rise into the heavenly world of the Sugmad. Without the Mahanta, the
Living Eck Master, no one can attain conscious union with the stream
of pure life, nor can he go further than the first region of light,
which is the astral."


-Paul Twitchell, The Spiritual Notebook


"All religions, philosphies, and sacred doctrines are the offsprings
of Eckankar."


-Letters to a Chela, discourse 4, page 1, by Paul Twitchell


"You [the eckankar follower reading Letters to a Chela] are superior
in your knowledge and thinking over all others who are not in
Eckankar."


-Letters to a Chela, discourse 4, page 1, by Paul Twitchell


"The Living ECK (sic) Master is always higher on the spiritual scale
of God than any of the saints of the worldly religions."


-Sharyat Ki Sugmad, Book 1, chapter 6, by Paul Twitchell


QUESTION: Then it would not be necessary to have a master after one
has truly accomplished soul travel and learned its precepts?


"Every living ECK master chooses his chelas and few are let go. If
they do wish to go, it means they leave voluntarily and it is
mutually agreed upon. If the chela decides to leave the living ECK
Master on his own without first discussing it, then he has problems
to face which are more severe than ever. He has left the Master and
gone into the wilderness alone to face the wild beasts which will
devour him. It is typical of the vain chela to announce that he is
leaving without asking permission."


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 144


If any Soul who is a chela or initiate leaves the path of Eck for
another way to the heavenly worlds he must expect his karma to be
extended. His karmic burden increases as he gathers more, going
through incarnation after incarnation, He will again someday meet
with the Living Eck Master, when ready. (SKS 1, 97)


At no time does the Mahanta ever leave one who has become his charge,
regardless of whether or not the chela tries to break his ties.


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 65


Those who need the Living ECK Master will always stay with him, but
those who feel that they are beyond this are wrong in their thinking.
They have not examined the truth, and will go afoul of the illusions
established by the Kal.


-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 170


TIAN YUE RESPONDS:


So, one must ask permission to leave. One must first "discuss"
leaving the Master. If the chela doesn't ask for permission, and
discuss leaving with the master, which implies a degree of servitude
and obediance expected from Twitchell, then the chela will be
devoured by beasts!  And chelas who don't ask for permission are
vain. I see.


Whoa there, Maestro. Thou doest presume far too much. And thou doest
reveal much, as well.


This is an extreme example of the threats laid upon the chela, as
well as more examples of doublespeak. Notice he says leaving is
voluntary on one hand, but on the other permission is required. And
if permission isn't requested and actually discussed, wild beasts
will devour the chela, and problems will be severe. Implied is a
power the master has to grant safe passage to the chela who wishes to
go. This requirement for permission is quite ominous, if one thinks
about it. Permission? Permission more than implies the Master has
power over the chela. Wild beasts? Wilderness? Being eaten? Severe
problems? My lord, are we still in the dark ages?

Kent

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, tygerpurr <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's kind of like the power of Suggestion. We quite often see what
we
> expect to see or what we have been conditioned to see, hear, feel.
> Also, it may simply be wishful thinking or what we want based on
> denial of what really is. Children do this a lot as a way to cope.
It
> is normal to do this, but in a Cult environment the members are
> encouraged to create a world that is unreal. When you leave the
Cult,
> at first it is scary because all of this delusion starts to go
blank,
> like the invisible picture. For myself, I learned a form of
meditation
> that involves just letting go and observing the flow of thoughts and
> feelings, 'til they just dissolve and disappear and my mind and body
> go into a state of deep relaxation that feels very free and
spontaneous.
>
> What Eckankult does in their "spiritual exercises" is the opposite
of
> freedom. It is a practice in self-conditioning and an induced trance
> state based on preconceived Cult thinking, the worst of which is
> Harold Klemp's face as your object of devotion. Yuck!
>
> QUESTION AUTHORITY!!!
>
> Tygerpurr ; )
>


I agree, Tygerpurr! The way I tend to see this, the infinite no-thing
is a blank slate. We see in it what we want to see. And people are so
certain that what they see is the only correct vision. They will go
to war over such certainty, just as the fictional characters in this
excerpt began to fight amongst themselves!

Eckankar's vertical ladder of its value judgments regarding other
religions, with itself at the top is illusory. More and more, I see
instead a horizontal relationship between religions. In other words,
religions might have at least some merit, and they all often have
detrimental aspects that people should beware of, as well. They each
can provide, maybe, a little piece of the puzzle (being generous
here). I'll take a humble philosophy that doesn't lie over a
grandiose one that lies through its miserable teeth any day, that is,
if I choose any religion at all!

But I don't at all agree with the vertical hierarchy that some
teachings claim. What nonsense!

And I do think that science has its place in the world. Reason and
logic also can be useful, to state the obvious.

And I agree, question authority!!!

I hope all is well with you and family, Tygerpurr.

Kent






> --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> Re: Images of our own making
>
>
> It seems I can't spell. Correcting the title, for what its worth.
>
> "There was once a painter who traveled into the cordillera in order
> to paint an invisible picture of Christ. When he finished, the local
> Indians scrambled up the rocks to examine it and found that it was,
> in fact, a picture of Viracocha. A Chinaman passing by went up to
> see what it was that was causing such excitement and found to his
> surprise that on the rock was a picture of the Buddha. The painter
> stuck to his assertion that it was Christ who was invisibly
> portrayed, and a loud and rancorous argument developed. In the midst
> of the altercation one of the Indians noticed that the picture had
> erased itself.
>
> The truth is that the mountains are a place where you can find
> whatever you want just by looking, as long as you remember that they
> do not suffer fools gladly and particularly dislike those with
> preconceived ideas."
>
> -Louis de Bernieres, in The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts
>

[Posted on other groups, as well]

I became a member in the Southern California area, which really
was the area that was the genesis of eckankar. In those early
years, Gail Twitchell's sunusu multi level marketing began, with
one of the first meetings, as I recall, at the Laguna Beach Eck
Center, led in part by Gail, herself.  My area representative sold
the stuff, and Eckists like Ron Lavaneri was a sunusu bigwig,
and heavily pushed the stuff on all of us, trying to get all the
eckists selling the stuff. I sold the stuff for awhile.

As I see it, there has always been an opportunistic flair in
Eckankar. In various areas in which I lived, there was always
some activity going on, often with some H.I.'s involved, that
involved some MLS scheme or another. The term "poverty
consciousness" became a term that was bandied about many
years ago. As I recall, Klemp has used the term.  This term is
used by a lot of spiritual new age groups. In eckankar, this is
nothing new.

PT wrote, "Those in poverty, are those who have received without
giving."

So, those in poverty are working out their karma, so of course,
they deserve no compromise or compassion from the wealthy, in
Eckankar teachings.

Thus, the shunning of the poor in Eckankar.  No mention is
made of all those in poor countries who are exploited so that
American corporations can continue supplying goods at very low
prices to Americans, so that Americans can continue to enjoy
their high standard of living. Apparently, if one takes Eckankar
doctrine seriously, most people in the world took a great deal
without giving, in their past lives, considering how much poverty
there is in the world.

But apparently it is just fine for Americans (including the average
Eckists) to take the labor of those in other countries for a few
cents a day, so that they can have nice nick nacks from Wall Mart
to clutter their homes with.  And how many would want to pay
more for those items in order to GIVE to those whose products
they're taking for less than the market value. Aren't all Americans
taking without giving? Yet this is not at all the kind of thing one
can state within Eckankar circles. So much for karma. Go figure...

PT and Klemp also have stated blacks are serving out their
karma for misdeeds in other lives. Horsepucky. PT/Klemp have
no idea what karma any one has had in other lives. They
obviously can't read soul records (wrote about this before, so I
won't repeat this). This is racism. For crying out loud, would not
the slavers have earned karma for enslaving the blacks? Yet
PT/Klemp say nothing about that. Karma is a one way street for
PT and Klemp. Karma is made to fit what serves and justifies
their particular values (i.e., PT's Southern values, Klemp's
Midwestern values, or what is known as the Protestant Work
Ethic). So blacks deserve to be poor, they earned it. Okay, again,
don't the Southern slave owners deserve some karma for
enslaving blacks? Apparently not, in PT's mind, since he made
no mention of that, despite opening up the topic with his remarks
about blacks.

And white poor people are suffering from their karma, as well.
What is ignored is that there will always be people at the bottom
who are too ignorant to stand up for themselves, and are used
by the big corporations of the world as slightly more than slave
labor. Wages are at the lowest in terms of real worth than they
have been for some 40 years. Do the big corps incur karma?
Apparently not, since PT/HK say nothing about this, other than to
denounce welfare and social security.

So, this idea of "poverty consciousness," despite whatever merit
there may be to the notion, is being used to justify exploitation
and opportunism.  And it reflects the Protestant Christian
upbringing of PT/HK. And despite the wealth, Americans are, as
minimalist David Thoreou phrased so well, "living lives of quiet
desperation." They are overweight, depressed, often suffering
from what are called "diseases of civilization," have nothing
better to do than worry about the latest "American Idol," they
arrogantly look upon other countries as inferior, all the while
drinking coca kola by the gallons.

Poverty consciousness, indeed. If this sort of wealth reflects
spirituality, PT/HK can go suck eggs.

One can be very "spiritual" despite not having amassed wealth.
In fact, I'd say that such hardship as poverty produces some of
the most spiritual people on the planet. It's not that being poor is
preferable. Its that the insights gained from such experiences
are far different than the insights gained by having more food in
your refrigerator than you will ever need to eat.

In most countries of the world, one is considered to be doing
quite well if they have a little home, a low paying job, and basic
staples such as rice on their tables.

Kent

[Posted on other groups, as well]

I became a member in the Southern California area, which really
was the area that was the genesis of eckankar. In those early
years, Gail Twitchell's sunusu multi level marketing began, with
one of the first meetings, as I recall, at the Laguna Beach Eck
Center, led in part by Gail, herself. My area representative sold
the stuff, and Eckists like Ron Lavaneri was a sunusu bigwig,
and heavily pushed the stuff on all of us, trying to get all the
eckists selling the stuff. I sold the stuff for awhile.

As I see it, there has always been an opportunistic flair in
Eckankar. In various areas in which I lived, there was always
some activity going on, often with some H.I.'s involved, that
involved some MLS scheme or another. The term "poverty
consciousness" became a term that was bandied about many
years ago. As I recall, Klemp has used the term. This term is
used by a lot of spiritual new age groups. In eckankar, this is
nothing new.

PT wrote, "Those in poverty, are those who have received without
giving."

So, those in poverty are working out their karma, so of course,
they deserve no compromise or compassion from the wealthy, in
Eckankar teachings.

Thus, the shunning of the poor in Eckankar. No mention is
made of all those in poor countries who are exploited so that
American corporations can continue supplying goods at very low
prices to Americans, so that Americans can continue to enjoy
their high standard of living. Apparently, if one takes Eckankar
doctrine seriously, most people in the world took a great deal
without giving, in their past lives, considering how much poverty
there is in the world.

But apparently it is just fine for Americans (including the average
Eckists) to take the labor of those in other countries for a few
cents a day, so that they can have nice nick nacks from Wall Mart
to clutter their homes with. And how many would want to pay
more for those items in order to GIVE to those whose products
they're taking for less than the market value. Aren't all Americans
taking without giving? Yet this is not at all the kind of thing one
can state within Eckankar circles. So much for karma. Go figure...

PT and Klemp also have stated blacks are serving out their
karma for misdeeds in other lives. Horsepucky. PT/Klemp have
no idea what karma any one has had in other lives. They
obviously can't read soul records (wrote about this before, so I
won't repeat this). This is racism. For crying out loud, would not
the slavers have earned karma for enslaving the blacks? Yet
PT/Klemp say nothing about that. Karma is a one way street for
PT and Klemp. Karma is made to fit what serves and justifies
their particular values (i.e., PT's Southern values, Klemp's
Midwestern values, or what is known as the Protestant Work
Ethic). So blacks deserve to be poor, they earned it. Okay, again,
don't the Southern slave owners deserve some karma for
enslaving blacks? Apparently not, in PT's mind, since he made
no mention of that, despite opening up the topic with his remarks
about blacks.

And white poor people are suffering from their karma, as well.
What is ignored is that there will always be people at the bottom
who are too ignorant to stand up for themselves, and are used
by the big corporations of the world as slightly more than slave
labor. Wages are at the lowest in terms of real worth than they
have been for some 40 years. Do the big corps incur karma?
Apparently not, since PT/HK say nothing about this, other than to
denounce welfare and social security.

So, this idea of "poverty consciousness," despite whatever merit
there may be to the notion, is being used to justify exploitation
and opportunism. And it reflects the Protestant Christian
upbringing of PT/HK. And despite the wealth, Americans are, as
minimalist David Thoreou phrased so well, "living lives of quiet
desperation." They are overweight, depressed, often suffering
from what are called "diseases of civilization," have nothing
better to do than worry about the latest "American Idol," they
arrogantly look upon other countries as inferior, all the while
drinking coca kola by the gallons.

Poverty consciousness, indeed. If this sort of wealth reflects
spirituality, PT/HK can go suck eggs.

One can be very "spiritual" despite not having amassed wealth.
In fact, I'd say that such hardship as poverty produces some of
the most spiritual people on the planet. It's not that being poor is
preferable. Its that the insights gained from such experiences
are far different than the insights gained by having more food in
your refrigerator than you will ever need to eat.

In most countries of the world, one is considered to be doing
quite well if they have a little home, a low paying job, and basic
staples such as rice on their tables.

Kent




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Zoey,

Paul Twitchell created Sunusu, which was an MLM vitamin
company. Ostensibly he created the company to give eckists a
way to make a living while spreading the word of eckankar. PT
consulted with Dr. Bernard Jensen, a chiropractor, to formulate
the vitamins.  Gail was the actual head of the company. It was
sold to another person long ago.

I see this poverty consciousness notion as another way to
excuse callousness.  People who don't believe in having
compassion for humanity want to find a way to "spiritualize" their
disregard for others. I see it likely rooted in the prostestant work
ethic, which is far reaching in American culture.  Supposedly,
people who go to church, and obey god, and work hard will
prosper, those who don't will suffer.  So those in poverty are
somehow lacking, and therefore can be ignored. It is a way to
justify intolerance.

PT and HK have conservative values that preceed their
association with Eckankar, and this conservatism has nothing to
do with anything remotely spiritual, in my view.

And true, as you wrote, PT did make misogynistic comments
about women. I posted the excerpts awhile back that show the
misogynistic streak in PT. PT was basicly a southern
conservative with traditional southerrn values regarding race,
women, economics, the military, poverty, etc. He combined his
protestant christian views with the Sant Mat/Scientology/Hindu
influences.

Kent



--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger
<zoey_true@...> wrote:
>
> this is something i did not know, that gail was into a multi level
marketing thing.  for me, that speaks for itself.  that says a lot.
and not in a good way.  and surely paul condoned it.  how could
she have done it otherwise?
>
>   yes, i agree that eckists are opportunists.  especially when
they're existing on the 'GOD wants me to be rich, the Universe
loves me, I am a beautiful being, good things are coming to me -
NOW' mentality.  and there are a lot of those.  i never thought
about it, but i knew eckists who were selling some type of
vitamins or health product.
>
>   the group i was involved with were a pretty serious group of
people.  i mean, they were dorks, too, but they seemed to take
their spirituality seriously.   i was surprised to hear that they have
become the equivalent of so many New Age materialists.  they
used to be just sad, and kinda wierd.  now they're prosperity
chasers.
>
>   poverty consciousness is a real thing, a real state of being.
prosperity chasers believe that it is bad to have a poverty
consciousness, therefore, getting rich is good.  but it doesn't
exactly work like that.  at any rate, the eckankar  idea of poverty
and karma that you describe here, leafeater, is twisted.  bizarre.
they sound like freaking hindus.
>
>   hey, not only was pt a racist, but he was a chauvanist.  he said
something about women lacking the spiritual battery that men
have.  so help me, it's true.  i will try to find that quote.
>
>   zoey...
>
>
>
> tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:
>   [Posted on other groups, as well]
>
> I became a member in the Southern California area, which
really
> was the area that was the genesis of eckankar. In those early
> years, Gail Twitchell's sunusu multi level marketing began,
with
> one of the first meetings, as I recall, at the Laguna Beach Eck
> Center, led in part by Gail, herself. My area representative sold
> the stuff, and Eckists like Ron Lavaneri was a sunusu bigwig,
> and heavily pushed the stuff on all of us, trying to get all the
> eckists selling the stuff. I sold the stuff for awhile.
>
> As I see it, there has always been an opportunistic flair in
> Eckankar. In various areas in which I lived, there was always
> some activity going on, often with some H.I.'s involved, that
> involved some MLS scheme or another. The term "poverty
> consciousness" became a term that was bandied about many
> years ago. As I recall, Klemp has used the term. This term is
> used by a lot of spiritual new age groups. In eckankar, this is
> nothing new.
>
> PT wrote, "Those in poverty, are those who have received
without
> giving."
>
> So, those in poverty are working out their karma, so of course,
> they deserve no compromise or compassion from the wealthy,
in
> Eckankar teachings.
>
> Thus, the shunning of the poor in Eckankar. No mention is
> made of all those in poor countries who are exploited so that
> American corporations can continue supplying goods at very
low
> prices to Americans, so that Americans can continue to enjoy
> their high standard of living. Apparently, if one takes Eckankar
> doctrine seriously, most people in the world took a great deal
> without giving, in their past lives, considering how much
poverty
> there is in the world.
>
> But apparently it is just fine for Americans (including the
average
> Eckists) to take the labor of those in other countries for a few
> cents a day, so that they can have nice nick nacks from Wall
Mart
> to clutter their homes with. And how many would want to pay
> more for those items in order to GIVE to those whose products
> they're taking for less than the market value. Aren't all
Americans
> taking without giving? Yet this is not at all the kind of thing one
> can state within Eckankar circles. So much for karma. Go
figure...
>
> PT and Klemp also have stated blacks are serving out their
> karma for misdeeds in other lives. Horsepucky. PT/Klemp have
> no idea what karma any one has had in other lives. They
> obviously can't read soul records (wrote about this before, so I
> won't repeat this). This is racism. For crying out loud, would not
> the slavers have earned karma for enslaving the blacks? Yet
> PT/Klemp say nothing about that. Karma is a one way street for
> PT and Klemp. Karma is made to fit what serves and justifies
> their particular values (i.e., PT's Southern values, Klemp's
> Midwestern values, or what is known as the Protestant Work
> Ethic). So blacks deserve to be poor, they earned it. Okay,
again,
> don't the Southern slave owners deserve some karma for
> enslaving blacks? Apparently not, in PT's mind, since he made
> no mention of that, despite opening up the topic with his
remarks
> about blacks.
>
> And white poor people are suffering from their karma, as well.
> What is ignored is that there will always be people at the
bottom
> who are too ignorant to stand up for themselves, and are used
> by the big corporations of the world as slightly more than slave
> labor. Wages are at the lowest in terms of real worth than they
> have been for some 40 years. Do the big corps incur karma?
> Apparently not, since PT/HK say nothing about this, other than
to
> denounce welfare and social security.
>
> So, this idea of "poverty consciousness," despite whatever
merit
> there may be to the notion, is being used to justify exploitation
> and opportunism. And it reflects the Protestant Christian
> upbringing of PT/HK. And despite the wealth, Americans are,
as
> minimalist David Thoreou phrased so well, "living lives of quiet
> desperation." They are overweight, depressed, often suffering
> from what are called "diseases of civilization," have nothing
> better to do than worry about the latest "American Idol," they
> arrogantly look upon other countries as inferior, all the while
> drinking coca kola by the gallons.
>
> Poverty consciousness, indeed. If this sort of wealth reflects
> spirituality, PT/HK can go suck eggs.
>
> One can be very "spiritual" despite not having amassed wealth.
> In fact, I'd say that such hardship as poverty produces some of
> the most spiritual people on the planet. It's not that being poor
is
> preferable. Its that the insights gained from such experiences
> are far different than the insights gained by having more food in
> your refrigerator than you will ever need to eat.
>
> In most countries of the world, one is considered to be doing
> quite well if they have a little home, a low paying job, and basic
> staples such as rice on their tables.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>

Hi Zoey,

Paul Twitchell created Sunusu, which was an MLM vitamin
company. Ostensibly he created the company to give eckists a
way to make a living while spreading the word of eckankar. PT
consulted with Dr. Bernard Jensen, a chiropractor, to formulate
the vitamins. Gail was the actual head of the company. It was
sold to another person long ago.

I see this poverty consciousness notion as another way to
excuse callousness. People who don't believe in having
compassion for humanity want to find a way to "spiritualize" their
disregard for others. I see it likely rooted in the prostestant work
ethic, which is far reaching in American culture. Supposedly,
people who go to church, and obey god, and work hard will
prosper, those who don't will suffer. So those in poverty are
somehow lacking, and therefore can be ignored. It is a way to
justify intolerance.

PT and HK have conservative values that preceed their
association with Eckankar, and this conservatism has nothing to
do with anything remotely spiritual, in my view.

And true, as you wrote, PT did make misogynistic comments
about women. I posted the excerpts awhile back that show the
misogynistic streak in PT. PT was basicly a southern
conservative with traditional southerrn values regarding race,
women, economics, the military, poverty, etc. He combined his
protestant christian views with the Sant Mat/Scientology/Hindu
influences.

Kent



--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger
wrote:
>
> this is something i did not know, that gail was into a multi level
marketing thing. for me, that speaks for itself. that says a lot.
and not in a good way. and surely paul condoned it. how could
she have done it otherwise?
>
> yes, i agree that eckists are opportunists. especially when
they're existing on the 'GOD wants me to be rich, the Universe
loves me, I am a beautiful being, good things are coming to me -
NOW' mentality. and there are a lot of those. i never thought
about it, but i knew eckists who were selling some type of
vitamins or health product.
>
> the group i was involved with were a pretty serious group of
people. i mean, they were dorks, too, but they seemed to take
their spirituality seriously. i was surprised to hear that they have
become the equivalent of so many New Age materialists. they
used to be just sad, and kinda wierd. now they're prosperity
chasers.
>
> poverty consciousness is a real thing, a real state of being.
prosperity chasers believe that it is bad to have a poverty
consciousness, therefore, getting rich is good. but it doesn't
exactly work like that. at any rate, the eckankar idea of poverty
and karma that you describe here, leafeater, is twisted. bizarre.
they sound like freaking hindus.
>
> hey, not only was pt a racist, but he was a chauvanist. he said
something about women lacking the spiritual battery that men
have. so help me, it's true. i will try to find that quote.
>
> zoey...
>
>
>
> tomleafeater wrote:
> [Posted on other groups, as well]
>
> I became a member in the Southern California area, which
really
> was the area that was the genesis of eckankar. In those early
> years, Gail Twitchell's sunusu multi level marketing began,
with
> one of the first meetings, as I recall, at the Laguna Beach Eck
> Center, led in part by Gail, herself. My area representative sold
> the stuff, and Eckists like Ron Lavaneri was a sunusu bigwig,
> and heavily pushed the stuff on all of us, trying to get all the
> eckists selling the stuff. I sold the stuff for awhile.
>
> As I see it, there has always been an opportunistic flair in
> Eckankar. In various areas in which I lived, there was always
> some activity going on, often with some H.I.'s involved, that
> involved some MLS scheme or another. The term "poverty
> consciousness" became a term that was bandied about many
> years ago. As I recall, Klemp has used the term. This term is
> used by a lot of spiritual new age groups. In eckankar, this is
> nothing new.
>
> PT wrote, "Those in poverty, are those who have received
without
> giving."
>
> So, those in poverty are working out their karma, so of course,
> they deserve no compromise or compassion from the wealthy,
in
> Eckankar teachings.
>
> Thus, the shunning of the poor in Eckankar. No mention is
> made of all those in poor countries who are exploited so that
> American corporations can continue supplying goods at very
low
> prices to Americans, so that Americans can continue to enjoy
> their high standard of living. Apparently, if one takes Eckankar
> doctrine seriously, most people in the world took a great deal
> without giving, in their past lives, considering how much
poverty
> there is in the world.
>
> But apparently it is just fine for Americans (including the
average
> Eckists) to take the labor of those in other countries for a few
> cents a day, so that they can have nice nick nacks from Wall
Mart
> to clutter their homes with. And how many would want to pay
> more for those items in order to GIVE to those whose products
> they're taking for less than the market value. Aren't all
Americans
> taking without giving? Yet this is not at all the kind of thing one
> can state within Eckankar circles. So much for karma. Go
figure...
>
> PT and Klemp also have stated blacks are serving out their
> karma for misdeeds in other lives. Horsepucky. PT/Klemp have
> no idea what karma any one has had in other lives. They
> obviously can't read soul records (wrote about this before, so I
> won't repeat this). This is racism. For crying out loud, would not
> the slavers have earned karma for enslaving the blacks? Yet
> PT/Klemp say nothing about that. Karma is a one way street for
> PT and Klemp. Karma is made to fit what serves and justifies
> their particular values (i.e., PT's Southern values, Klemp's
> Midwestern values, or what is known as the Protestant Work
> Ethic). So blacks deserve to be poor, they earned it. Okay,
again,
> don't the Southern slave owners deserve some karma for
> enslaving blacks? Apparently not, in PT's mind, since he made
> no mention of that, despite opening up the topic with his
remarks
> about blacks.
>
> And white poor people are suffering from their karma, as well.
> What is ignored is that there will always be people at the
bottom
> who are too ignorant to stand up for themselves, and are used
> by the big corporations of the world as slightly more than slave
> labor. Wages are at the lowest in terms of real worth than they
> have been for some 40 years. Do the big corps incur karma?
> Apparently not, since PT/HK say nothing about this, other than
to
> denounce welfare and social security.
>
> So, this idea of "poverty consciousness," despite whatever
merit
> there may be to the notion, is being used to justify exploitation
> and opportunism. And it reflects the Protestant Christian
> upbringing of PT/HK. And despite the wealth, Americans are,
as
> minimalist David Thoreou phrased so well, "living lives of quiet
> desperation." They are overweight, depressed, often suffering
> from what are called "diseases of civilization," have nothing
> better to do than worry about the latest "American Idol," they
> arrogantly look upon other countries as inferior, all the while
> drinking coca kola by the gallons.
>
> Poverty consciousness, indeed. If this sort of wealth reflects
> spirituality, PT/HK can go suck eggs.
>
> One can be very "spiritual" despite not having amassed wealth.
> In fact, I'd say that such hardship as poverty produces some of
> the most spiritual people on the planet. It's not that being poor
is
> preferable. Its that the insights gained from such experiences
> are far different than the insights gained by having more food in
> your refrigerator than you will ever need to eat.
>
> In most countries of the world, one is considered to be doing
> quite well if they have a little home, a low paying job, and basic
> staples such as rice on their tables.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural that all the
ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul,
into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of
freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was
flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became
dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me
no master in all the wide world not even in infinite space. I was free.

free to think, to express my thoughts

free to live to my own ideal

free to live for myself and those I loved

free to use all my faculties, all my senses

free to spread imagination's wings

free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope

free to judge and determine for myself

free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books
that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past

free from popes and priests

free from all the "called" and "set apart"

free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies

free from the fear of eternal pain

free from the winged monsters of night

free from devils, ghosts, and gods

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all
the realms of my thought, no air, no space, where fancy could not
spread her painted wings

no chains for my limbs

no lashes for my back

no fires for my flesh

no master's frown or threat

no following another's steps

no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words.

I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and
went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives
for the liberty of hand and brain

for the freedom of labor and thought

to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in
dungeons bound with chains

to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs

to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn

to those by fire consumed

to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and
deeds have given freedom to the sons of men.

And I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high,
that light might conquer darkness still."

..........Robert G. Ingersoll (18331899), "Why Am I An Agnostic?", 1896

  Although Robert Ingersoll wrote about being an Agnostic opposing
Christianity, there is a lot that relates to us leaving the myths
of eckankar. There is also a  good wikapedia article on him.
I found this very inspiring. He was an orator even mentioned by
Mark Twain in his writings.

                                                      Mike

Gandhi was poor.  Mother Teresa was poor. Lincoln was also
poor. I can think of countless artists and writers who have been
poor, as well.

Dick Cheney is rich, as is Donald Trump.  Marie Antoinette was
rich.

If the enormous wealth of such men equals greater spirituality,
then I don't want that kind of spirituality in my life.

If there is poverty consciousness, there is likewise wealth
consciousness? And is one bad and the other good, by
definition, as an absolute?

The implication is everyone has a choice. This is not science,
but rather it is religious belief. Sociologists state that people, in
fact, do not always have such choices. They say social
Darwinism is a myth. I think they're right.

I guess it depends on who you are and where you are in history.
A great many wealthy people have not been at all a healthy
influence for the planet. A great many poor people, on the other
hand, have done enormously great things.

I'd say there are different kinds of wealth. There are poor people
who have more wealth than Trump or Cheny.  They may have
compassion, tolerance, feel a connection to life, see beauty in
the simplest of things.

Which would you choose? Is a person who lacks these qualities
rich?

I once was going out with a multi millionare whose family literally
struck oil in their oil well drilling bussiness.  She was rich
beyond measure. She wanted to marry me. I passed her up
without even the slightest hesitation, despite the fact that I truly,
truly liked her. I met someone else with whom I felt more of a
real connection.

I guess that reveals my values. There are people who would
have made a different decision.

They, perhaps, are people with "wealth consciousness."

As for me, I can obviously take wealth or leave it. Neither wealth
nor poverty consciousness seems to possess me. Yet I've
always had enough.

The richest man may be poor. The poorest man may be rich.

True wealth is not about what you possess. Its about whether
you recognize the wealth, in its different forms, that may be all
around you.

Kent

Gandhi was poor. Mother Teresa was poor. Lincoln was also
poor. I can think of countless artists and writers who have been
poor, as well.

Dick Cheney is rich, as is Donald Trump. Marie Antoinette was
rich.

If the enormous wealth of such men equals greater spirituality,
then I don't want that kind of spirituality in my life.

If there is poverty consciousness, there is likewise wealth
consciousness? And is one bad and the other good, by
definition, as an absolute?

The implication is everyone has a choice. This is not science,
but rather it is religious belief. Sociologists state that people, in
fact, do not always have such choices. They say social
Darwinism is a myth. I think they're right.

I guess it depends on who you are and where you are in history.
A great many wealthy people have not been at all a healthy
influence for the planet. A great many poor people, on the other
hand, have done enormously great things.

I'd say there are different kinds of wealth. There are poor people
who have more wealth than Trump or Cheny. They may have
compassion, tolerance, feel a connection to life, see beauty in
the simplest of things.

Which would you choose? Is a person who lacks these qualities
rich?

I once was going out with a multi millionare whose family literally
struck oil in their oil well drilling bussiness. She was rich
beyond measure. She wanted to marry me. I passed her up
without even the slightest hesitation, despite the fact that I truly,
truly liked her. I met someone else with whom I felt more of a
real connection.

I guess that reveals my values. There are people who would
have made a different decision.

They, perhaps, are people with "wealth consciousness."

As for me, I can obviously take wealth or leave it. Neither wealth
nor poverty consciousness seems to possess me. Yet I've
always had enough.

The richest man may be poor. The poorest man may be rich.

True wealth is not about what you possess. Its about whether
you recognize the wealth, in its different forms, that may be all
around you.

Kent





Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger <zoey_true@...>
wrote:
>
> altho my understanding of 'poverty consciousness' differs
tremendously from the typical New Ager, it is a concept i accept.
it would take a lot of talk to explain my concept of the phrase, and
i won't bore anybody with it here.  i brought it up in relation to an
eck community who seems to be moving toward a prosperity theology.  i
found that interesting.
>
>   it is an intriguing quesiton, isn't it?  what connection, if any,
is there between spirituality and financial status?
>
>   no, there really isn't a wealth consciousness, at least not a
financial wealth consciousness.  that is only the flip side of
poverty consciousness.
>
>   zoey....


Thanks, Zoey. I do understand what you are getting at. My post was
simply a few more thoughts I had on the topic, and not really a
direct reply to what you wrote. I like to think about philosophy, and
how to view various issues of the world. I'm constantly looking at
life from different perspectives.

I also realize that, now that we're out of eckankar, there will be
more variety in the ways we all see the world. In eckankar, there is
that tendency to "group think." Outside of eckankar, that tendency
will be less.

Eckankar was rather politically conservative. For the conservative ex-
eckist (whoever this may fit?) the conservatism of eckankar would
probably not be an issue. For others, eckankar may be looked back on
as a time in which they may have felt manipulated to view the world
in a manner they weren't really in agreement with, but felt pressured
to view life from PT/Klemp's Southern or Midwestern, Protestant
Christian, conservative way of seeing things.

So for some ex-eckists, this will be a larger issue than it will be
for others.

I spend time posting some of the things I do because I know there are
some who may benefit from reading these views. I realize many of the
readers, even now that they're ex-members, may not be in agreement.
No biggy. That's as it should be.

Kent














> tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:
>   Gandhi was poor. Mother Teresa was poor. Lincoln was also
> poor. I can think of countless artists and writers who have been
> poor, as well.
>
> Dick Cheney is rich, as is Donald Trump. Marie Antoinette was
> rich.
>
> If the enormous wealth of such men equals greater spirituality,
> then I don't want that kind of spirituality in my life.
>
> If there is poverty consciousness, there is likewise wealth
> consciousness? And is one bad and the other good, by
> definition, as an absolute?
>
> The implication is everyone has a choice. This is not science,
> but rather it is religious belief. Sociologists state that people,
in
> fact, do not always have such choices. They say social
> Darwinism is a myth. I think they're right.
>
> I guess it depends on who you are and where you are in history.
> A great many wealthy people have not been at all a healthy
> influence for the planet. A great many poor people, on the other
> hand, have done enormously great things.
>
> I'd say there are different kinds of wealth. There are poor people
> who have more wealth than Trump or Cheny. They may have
> compassion, tolerance, feel a connection to life, see beauty in
> the simplest of things.
>
> Which would you choose? Is a person who lacks these qualities
> rich?
>
> I once was going out with a multi millionare whose family literally
> struck oil in their oil well drilling bussiness. She was rich
> beyond measure. She wanted to marry me. I passed her up
> without even the slightest hesitation, despite the fact that I
truly,
> truly liked her. I met someone else with whom I felt more of a
> real connection.
>
> I guess that reveals my values. There are people who would
> have made a different decision.
>
> They, perhaps, are people with "wealth consciousness."
>
> As for me, I can obviously take wealth or leave it. Neither wealth
> nor poverty consciousness seems to possess me. Yet I've
> always had enough.
>
> The richest man may be poor. The poorest man may be rich.
>
> True wealth is not about what you possess. Its about whether
> you recognize the wealth, in its different forms, that may be all
> around you.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>

Excellent post. Amazing how closely his words come to expressing what
I have felt in leaving eckankar! Wow!!!

Thanks for posting this. It's great! It is a breath of fresh air to
be able to cast aside the manacles.

I liked especially this, but it all was very good:

"For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in
all the realms of my thought, no air, no space, where fancy could not
spread her painted wings."

Sums it up nicely!

Kent


--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "violinmike2002"
<violinmike2002@...> wrote:
>
> When I became convinced that the Universe is natural that all the
> ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my
soul,
> into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of
> freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was
> flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became
> dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for
me
> no master in all the wide world not even in infinite space. I was
free.
>
> free to think, to express my thoughts
>
> free to live to my own ideal
>
> free to live for myself and those I loved
>
> free to use all my faculties, all my senses
>
> free to spread imagination's wings
>
> free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope
>
> free to judge and determine for myself
>
> free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired"
books
> that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the
past
>
> free from popes and priests
>
> free from all the "called" and "set apart"
>
> free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies
>
> free from the fear of eternal pain
>
> free from the winged monsters of night
>
> free from devils, ghosts, and gods
>
> For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in
all
> the realms of my thought, no air, no space, where fancy could not
> spread her painted wings
>
> no chains for my limbs
>
> no lashes for my back
>
> no fires for my flesh
>
> no master's frown or threat
>
> no following another's steps
>
> no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words.
>
> I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all
worlds.
> And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and
> went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their
lives
> for the liberty of hand and brain
>
> for the freedom of labor and thought
>
> to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in
> dungeons bound with chains
>
> to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs
>
> to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn
>
> to those by fire consumed
>
> to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts
and
> deeds have given freedom to the sons of men.
>
> And I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high,
> that light might conquer darkness still."
>
> ..........Robert G. Ingersoll (18331899), "Why Am I An Agnostic?",
1896
>
>  Although Robert Ingersoll wrote about being an Agnostic opposing
> Christianity, there is a lot that relates to us leaving the myths
> of eckankar. There is also a  good wikapedia article on him.
> I found this very inspiring. He was an orator even mentioned by
> Mark Twain in his writings.
>
>                                                      Mike
>

Kent wrote:
"I realize many of the readers, even now that they're ex-members,
may not be in agreement. No biggy. That's as it should be."

Great comment, Kent, and one for us all to remember its
richness in being free to speak our beliefs and not have to
conform to group think--cultish think! Good to be free
to be! : )

Mish

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
<tianyue@...> wrote:
>
> --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger
<zoey_true@>
> wrote:
> >
> > altho my understanding of 'poverty consciousness' differs
> tremendously from the typical New Ager, it is a concept i accept.
> it would take a lot of talk to explain my concept of the phrase, and
> i won't bore anybody with it here.  i brought it up in relation to an
> eck community who seems to be moving toward a prosperity theology.  i
> found that interesting.
> >
> >   it is an intriguing quesiton, isn't it?  what connection, if any,
> is there between spirituality and financial status?
> >
> >   no, there really isn't a wealth consciousness, at least not a
> financial wealth consciousness.  that is only the flip side of
> poverty consciousness.
> >
> >   zoey....
>
>
> Thanks, Zoey. I do understand what you are getting at. My post was
> simply a few more thoughts I had on the topic, and not really a
> direct reply to what you wrote. I like to think about philosophy, and
> how to view various issues of the world. I'm constantly looking at
> life from different perspectives.
>
> I also realize that, now that we're out of eckankar, there will be
> more variety in the ways we all see the world. In eckankar, there is
> that tendency to "group think." Outside of eckankar, that tendency
> will be less.
>
> Eckankar was rather politically conservative. For the conservative ex-
> eckist (whoever this may fit?) the conservatism of eckankar would
> probably not be an issue. For others, eckankar may be looked back on
> as a time in which they may have felt manipulated to view the world
> in a manner they weren't really in agreement with, but felt pressured
> to view life from PT/Klemp's Southern or Midwestern, Protestant
> Christian, conservative way of seeing things.
>
> So for some ex-eckists, this will be a larger issue than it will be
> for others.
>
> I spend time posting some of the things I do because I know there are
> some who may benefit from reading these views. I realize many of the
> readers, even now that they're ex-members, may not be in agreement.
> No biggy. That's as it should be.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > tomleafeater <tianyue@> wrote:
> >   Gandhi was poor. Mother Teresa was poor. Lincoln was also
> > poor. I can think of countless artists and writers who have been
> > poor, as well.
> >
> > Dick Cheney is rich, as is Donald Trump. Marie Antoinette was
> > rich.
> >
> > If the enormous wealth of such men equals greater spirituality,
> > then I don't want that kind of spirituality in my life.
> >
> > If there is poverty consciousness, there is likewise wealth
> > consciousness? And is one bad and the other good, by
> > definition, as an absolute?
> >
> > The implication is everyone has a choice. This is not science,
> > but rather it is religious belief. Sociologists state that people,
> in
> > fact, do not always have such choices. They say social
> > Darwinism is a myth. I think they're right.
> >
> > I guess it depends on who you are and where you are in history.
> > A great many wealthy people have not been at all a healthy
> > influence for the planet. A great many poor people, on the other
> > hand, have done enormously great things.
> >
> > I'd say there are different kinds of wealth. There are poor people
> > who have more wealth than Trump or Cheny. They may have
> > compassion, tolerance, feel a connection to life, see beauty in
> > the simplest of things.
> >
> > Which would you choose? Is a person who lacks these qualities
> > rich?
> >
> > I once was going out with a multi millionare whose family literally
> > struck oil in their oil well drilling bussiness. She was rich
> > beyond measure. She wanted to marry me. I passed her up
> > without even the slightest hesitation, despite the fact that I
> truly,
> > truly liked her. I met someone else with whom I felt more of a
> > real connection.
> >
> > I guess that reveals my values. There are people who would
> > have made a different decision.
> >
> > They, perhaps, are people with "wealth consciousness."
> >
> > As for me, I can obviously take wealth or leave it. Neither wealth
> > nor poverty consciousness seems to possess me. Yet I've
> > always had enough.
> >
> > The richest man may be poor. The poorest man may be rich.
> >
> > True wealth is not about what you possess. Its about whether
> > you recognize the wealth, in its different forms, that may be all
> > around you.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> >
>

in case you do not see my response over at ESA, leafeater, i want you
to know that i am one of those people who enjoy your posts.  i have
been enjoying them for a very long time, and hope to continue.

later, gator
zoey....


--- In
  eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
>
> --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger <zoey_true@>
> wrote:
> >
> > altho my understanding of 'poverty consciousness' differs
> tremendously from the typical New Ager, it is a concept i accept.
> it would take a lot of talk to explain my concept of the phrase,
and
> i won't bore anybody with it here.  i brought it up in relation to
an
> eck community who seems to be moving toward a prosperity theology.
i
> found that interesting.
> >
> >   it is an intriguing quesiton, isn't it?  what connection, if
any,
> is there between spirituality and financial status?
> >
> >   no, there really isn't a wealth consciousness, at least not a
> financial wealth consciousness.  that is only the flip side of
> poverty consciousness.
> >
> >   zoey....
>
>
> Thanks, Zoey. I do understand what you are getting at. My post was
> simply a few more thoughts I had on the topic, and not really a
> direct reply to what you wrote. I like to think about philosophy,
and
> how to view various issues of the world. I'm constantly looking at
> life from different perspectives.
>
> I also realize that, now that we're out of eckankar, there will be
> more variety in the ways we all see the world. In eckankar, there
is
> that tendency to "group think." Outside of eckankar, that tendency
> will be less.
>
> Eckankar was rather politically conservative. For the conservative
ex-
> eckist (whoever this may fit?) the conservatism of eckankar would
> probably not be an issue. For others, eckankar may be looked back
on
> as a time in which they may have felt manipulated to view the world
> in a manner they weren't really in agreement with, but felt
pressured
> to view life from PT/Klemp's Southern or Midwestern, Protestant
> Christian, conservative way of seeing things.
>
> So for some ex-eckists, this will be a larger issue than it will be
> for others.
>
> I spend time posting some of the things I do because I know there
are
> some who may benefit from reading these views. I realize many of
the
> readers, even now that they're ex-members, may not be in agreement.
> No biggy. That's as it should be.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > tomleafeater <tianyue@> wrote:
> >   Gandhi was poor. Mother Teresa was poor. Lincoln was also
> > poor. I can think of countless artists and writers who have been
> > poor, as well.
> >
> > Dick Cheney is rich, as is Donald Trump. Marie Antoinette was
> > rich.
> >
> > If the enormous wealth of such men equals greater spirituality,
> > then I don't want that kind of spirituality in my life.
> >
> > If there is poverty consciousness, there is likewise wealth
> > consciousness? And is one bad and the other good, by
> > definition, as an absolute?
> >
> > The implication is everyone has a choice. This is not science,
> > but rather it is religious belief. Sociologists state that
people,
> in
> > fact, do not always have such choices. They say social
> > Darwinism is a myth. I think they're right.
> >
> > I guess it depends on who you are and where you are in history.
> > A great many wealthy people have not been at all a healthy
> > influence for the planet. A great many poor people, on the other
> > hand, have done enormously great things.
> >
> > I'd say there are different kinds of wealth. There are poor
people
> > who have more wealth than Trump or Cheny. They may have
> > compassion, tolerance, feel a connection to life, see beauty in
> > the simplest of things.
> >
> > Which would you choose? Is a person who lacks these qualities
> > rich?
> >
> > I once was going out with a multi millionare whose family
literally
> > struck oil in their oil well drilling bussiness. She was rich
> > beyond measure. She wanted to marry me. I passed her up
> > without even the slightest hesitation, despite the fact that I
> truly,
> > truly liked her. I met someone else with whom I felt more of a
> > real connection.
> >
> > I guess that reveals my values. There are people who would
> > have made a different decision.
> >
> > They, perhaps, are people with "wealth consciousness."
> >
> > As for me, I can obviously take wealth or leave it. Neither
wealth
> > nor poverty consciousness seems to possess me. Yet I've
> > always had enough.
> >
> > The richest man may be poor. The poorest man may be rich.
> >
> > True wealth is not about what you possess. Its about whether
> > you recognize the wealth, in its different forms, that may be all
> > around you.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> >
>

Paul Twitchell's mind trap is trying like eck to get new members.
That's all eckankar is really about, as you know. If you have anything
to say about it, add your views here.  This is a group for the
cognesenti execkist and the gullible seeker ready to buy eck
discourses.  Help one help all.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ECKANKAR-CHAT/

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "zoey_true"
<zoey_true@...> wrote:
>
> in case you do not see my response over at ESA, leafeater, i
want you
> to know that i am one of those people who enjoy your posts.  i
have
> been enjoying them for a very long time, and hope to continue.
>
> later, gator
> zoey....
>


Hi Zoey,

What with tax returns, computer nonsense like repairing my
cd-rom drive, and other distractions, plus my discussions with
the ever loving and kind lunatics at a.r.e., I've been a little
occupied lately, so I haven't checked in for a while. I appreciate
your comments very much. Thank you.   And by the way, I've
sincerely enjoyed your posts, too.

Kent





>
> --- In
>  eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger
<zoey_true@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > altho my understanding of 'poverty consciousness' differs
> > tremendously from the typical New Ager, it is a concept i
accept.
> > it would take a lot of talk to explain my concept of the phrase,
> and
> > i won't bore anybody with it here.  i brought it up in relation to
> an
> > eck community who seems to be moving toward a prosperity
theology.
> i
> > found that interesting.
> > >
> > >   it is an intriguing quesiton, isn't it?  what connection, if
> any,
> > is there between spirituality and financial status?
> > >
> > >   no, there really isn't a wealth consciousness, at least not
a
> > financial wealth consciousness.  that is only the flip side of
> > poverty consciousness.
> > >
> > >   zoey....
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Zoey. I do understand what you are getting at. My
post was
> > simply a few more thoughts I had on the topic, and not really
a
> > direct reply to what you wrote. I like to think about philosophy,
> and
> > how to view various issues of the world. I'm constantly
looking at
> > life from different perspectives.
> >
> > I also realize that, now that we're out of eckankar, there will
be
> > more variety in the ways we all see the world. In eckankar,
there
> is
> > that tendency to "group think." Outside of eckankar, that
tendency
> > will be less.
> >
> > Eckankar was rather politically conservative. For the
conservative
> ex-
> > eckist (whoever this may fit?) the conservatism of eckankar
would
> > probably not be an issue. For others, eckankar may be
looked back
> on
> > as a time in which they may have felt manipulated to view the
world
> > in a manner they weren't really in agreement with, but felt
> pressured
> > to view life from PT/Klemp's Southern or Midwestern,
Protestant
> > Christian, conservative way of seeing things.
> >
> > So for some ex-eckists, this will be a larger issue than it will
be
> > for others.
> >
> > I spend time posting some of the things I do because I know
there
> are
> > some who may benefit from reading these views. I realize
many of
> the
> > readers, even now that they're ex-members, may not be in
agreement.
> > No biggy. That's as it should be.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > tomleafeater <tianyue@> wrote:
> > >   Gandhi was poor. Mother Teresa was poor. Lincoln was
also
> > > poor. I can think of countless artists and writers who have
been
> > > poor, as well.
> > >
> > > Dick Cheney is rich, as is Donald Trump. Marie Antoinette
was
> > > rich.
> > >
> > > If the enormous wealth of such men equals greater
spirituality,
> > > then I don't want that kind of spirituality in my life.
> > >
> > > If there is poverty consciousness, there is likewise wealth
> > > consciousness? And is one bad and the other good, by
> > > definition, as an absolute?
> > >
> > > The implication is everyone has a choice. This is not
science,
> > > but rather it is religious belief. Sociologists state that
> people,
> > in
> > > fact, do not always have such choices. They say social
> > > Darwinism is a myth. I think they're right.
> > >
> > > I guess it depends on who you are and where you are in
history.
> > > A great many wealthy people have not been at all a healthy
> > > influence for the planet. A great many poor people, on the
other
> > > hand, have done enormously great things.
> > >
> > > I'd say there are different kinds of wealth. There are poor
> people
> > > who have more wealth than Trump or Cheny. They may
have
> > > compassion, tolerance, feel a connection to life, see beauty
in
> > > the simplest of things.
> > >
> > > Which would you choose? Is a person who lacks these
qualities
> > > rich?
> > >
> > > I once was going out with a multi millionare whose family
> literally
> > > struck oil in their oil well drilling bussiness. She was rich
> > > beyond measure. She wanted to marry me. I passed her
up
> > > without even the slightest hesitation, despite the fact that I
> > truly,
> > > truly liked her. I met someone else with whom I felt more of
a
> > > real connection.
> > >
> > > I guess that reveals my values. There are people who
would
> > > have made a different decision.
> > >
> > > They, perhaps, are people with "wealth consciousness."
> > >
> > > As for me, I can obviously take wealth or leave it. Neither
> wealth
> > > nor poverty consciousness seems to possess me. Yet I've
> > > always had enough.
> > >
> > > The richest man may be poor. The poorest man may be
rich.
> > >
> > > True wealth is not about what you possess. Its about
whether
> > > you recognize the wealth, in its different forms, that may be
all
> > > around you.
> > >
> > > Kent
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> > > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> > >
> >
>

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "soul_free44"
<soul_free44@...> wrote:
>
> Paul Twitchell's mind trap is trying like eck to get new
members.
> That's all eckankar is really about, as you know. If you have
anything
> to say about it, add your views here.  This is a group for the
> cognesenti execkist and the gullible seeker ready to buy eck
> discourses.  Help one help all.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ECKANKAR-CHAT/
>


Okay, cool. There are three ex-eckankar groups in existence.  In
which way will the new one be different?

Kent

and there is not a lot of activity there either ...
Ingrid

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "soul_free44"
> <soul_free44@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Twitchell's mind trap is trying like eck to get new
> members.
> > That's all eckankar is really about, as you know. If you have
> anything
> > to say about it, add your views here.  This is a group for the
> > cognesenti execkist and the gullible seeker ready to buy eck
> > discourses.  Help one help all.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ECKANKAR-CHAT/
> >
>
>
> Okay, cool. There are three ex-eckankar groups in existence.  In
> which way will the new one be different?
>
> Kent
>

A few good video links, but who is the group moderator?

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "ctecvie" <ctecvie@...> wrote:
>
>
> and there is not a lot of activity there either ...
> Ingrid
>
> --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "soul_free44"
> > <soul_free44@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Twitchell's mind trap is trying like eck to get new
> > members.
> > > That's all eckankar is really about, as you know. If you have
> > anything
> > > to say about it, add your views here.  This is a group for the
> > > cognesenti execkist and the gullible seeker ready to buy eck
> > > discourses.  Help one help all.
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ECKANKAR-CHAT/
> > >
> >
> >
> > Okay, cool. There are three ex-eckankar groups in existence.  In
> > which way will the new one be different?
> >
> > Kent
> >
>

Dear Friends,
I received an email from my ex-eckist friends trying to get me back.

It reads...
"What follows is a note from Doug Marman that he posted in a
discussion forum. Doug is a well-known author about ECKANKAR's history
( http://littleknownpubs.com/ ) who turned the tables on Davis
Lane's "expose." I'm sending this post to people on my mailing list
who might possibly be interested in his new book. I believe he's done
more research than anyone in ECKANKAR's history, and is really able
to "turn a phrase," which is an understatement."

This book is online and entitled "Dialogue in the Age of Criticism"
by Doug Marman.

It is an attempt at damage control from David Lane's writings.  There
is no mention of Confessions of a God Seeker, or any apologies for
Harold pretending to be God.

Have a look and a laugh.

http://littleknownpubs.com/

Be well,
Steve

Funny eckist teaches the hu and has ideas about the President's past
life

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fIqQ6EHm-jo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxT7Os0HWzA

Hello.  I am writing to your group to let you know I am not a "bot".  I
know the internet groups are saturated with advertisements for
everything imaginable, but I am not one of them.  I simply visit web
sites and share what I have found, that I feel may have value to
others.  I would like to be able to post my messages to your group, and
I promise you, I will not post anything that will lead your members in
a negative way.  I want to be a bearer of light and truth, not darkness
and evil.  I welcome any response, good or bad to my posts.  If there
is no one in this group who wants to hear anything I have to say,
please let me know, and I will get out of your way.
Thank you!

JoJo

Hi JoJo -

New member's posts are "moderated" here at Eckankartruth.  I approve
or reject new posts based on their content.  If and when I see that a
new member's posts are relevant to the group's subject matter, I may
or may not allow them to post unmoderated.  Perhaps you should spend
some time reading the archived messages here to get an idea of what
we're interested in.

For the most part, Eckankartruth's members are former cult members who
have already been "led" into the darkness and evil of the cult.  We
woke up and got out, and are unlikely to be conned again.  We learned
that light and truth is within us, and we don't need a phony "master"
who is selling something that does not belong to anyone else, a phony
"master" who is only interested in power and profit.

Your email sounds like it comes from a cult "vahana", a "missionary"
looking for new recruits to join whatever phony group they belong to.
   I've seen many like you.  To be honest, they're all totally
laughable, and even boring.  They usually start out with a cult member
claiming to want to "share light and truth".  They don't even realize
they're pushing lies.  They avoid mentioning what cult they belong to;
they toss out the bait and wait for someone to bite, and then reel
them in slowly.

Cults carefully "teach" their members how to recruit subtly and
deceptively.  For a good example of how eckankult does this, see:
http://tinyurl.com/2wlpby  - instructions straight from ekult's
founder on how members can INFILTRATE the whole world to get new
members and their money.  And you might want to check out the
information in the "links" and "files" at Eckankartruth - feel free to
"share" them with your fellow cult members!  <gg>

You may submit posts to Eckankartruth, and I will decide whether or
not to approve them for posting to the group, based on their content.
  But, I really have a strong feeling that no one is going to be
interested.  We've been there, done that.  And we won't be fooled
again!

Have a nice day, and thanks for your interest!

Sharon


--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "jojo_meema" <jojo_meema@...> wrote:
>
> Hello.  I am writing to your group to let you know I am not a "bot".  I
> know the internet groups are saturated with advertisements for
> everything imaginable, but I am not one of them.  I simply visit web
> sites and share what I have found, that I feel may have value to
> others.  I would like to be able to post my messages to your group, and
> I promise you, I will not post anything that will lead your members in
> a negative way.  I want to be a bearer of light and truth, not darkness
> and evil.  I welcome any response, good or bad to my posts.  If there
> is no one in this group who wants to hear anything I have to say,
> please let me know, and I will get out of your way.
> Thank you!
>
> JoJo
>

Last week I buried my mother.
My last words to her were how beautiful her blue eyes were as they
stared beyond me towards someone or something waiting.
She died a half hour later.
The next day, I noticed a nest on my deck.
A robin laid four blue eggs.
She sits on them like a proud mother waiting.
These are miracles.

Alf

Sorry for your loss, Alf. It's hard ... and then miracles happen.
So beautiful!
Ingrid

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, al_radzik <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Last week I buried my mother.
> My last words to her were how beautiful her blue eyes were as they
> stared beyond me towards someone or something waiting.
> She died a half hour later.
> The next day, I noticed a nest on my deck.
> A robin laid four blue eggs.
> She sits on them like a proud mother waiting.
> These are miracles.
>
> Alf
>

Sorry for your loss Alf, but how nice you were with her
in her last moments. I do believe in the miracle you
just described.

Mish

--- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, al_radzik <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> Last week I buried my mother.
> My last words to her were how beautiful her blue eyes were as they
> stared beyond me towards someone or something waiting.
> She died a half hour later.
> The next day, I noticed a nest on my deck.
> A robin laid four blue eggs.
> She sits on them like a proud mother waiting.
> These are miracles.
>
> Alf
>