2083Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: ECK Higher Initiations Are a Mixed Bag o...
- Jan 1, 2007In a message dated 1/1/07 10:10:50 PM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:
What say you, dear critic of my heart?
It wasn't the text or the messages that wasn't clear. Just that it
changed from one speaker to the next without a name preceeding
it. I know how after things are sent they don't always look the same
after they were composed. The context, who said what.
About Darwin, he had come and gone before I ever heard about
Eckankar. And what I have seen about him, it doesn't look good.
Anybody looking at the history I imagine they will probably not
see it as good either. But maybe they should have stood in his
shoes and then they would have had a better idea why.
I wrote about this some time ago on another B.B. I found it
curious that Darwin started looking for somebody else to bear
the burden of L.E.M. not long after David Lane's book came
out. It seems he tried to stay a part of the organization but
without bearing the responsibility for Eckankar history. He
and Gail got divorced around the time of David's book as well.
Was there something that Darwin found out that Gail hadn't
told him? Or was it getting to the point where he realized that
somebody would have to answer for the plagarism issues and
that it would naturally have to be him?
It's speculation of course what I have said, but Darwin did
keep the organization going for about ten years in spite of all
the criticism. Why did he look for somebody else to take his
spot? I can't say for certain.
Some of the answers I would give to you about your question I
don't think would be appropriate for this B.B. and would be better
to address on another venue or by e-mail instead. The reason
being that I don't see a totally black sky where Eckankar or even
Darwin are concerned. There are a number of bright points that I
would naturally have to add in order to give the bigger picture as
I see it. But this is an "Anti-Eckankar" B.B. and I don't think it
would be a fair and balanced description of Eckankar for me to
give only the most critical parts. Not Eckankar as I see it.
Some places I have found one is O.K. long as they only have
"good" things to say about Eckankar. In other places one is OK
if they only have "bad" things to say. God forbid if one should in
an attempt to share their own unique experience naturally give
a little of both sides together. Especially if necessary to better
define the truth of what they found.
On T.S. (TruthSeeker) I found it was easier to have such
freedom even when all of the posters didn't agree because it
wasn't Anti-Eckankar in the same context as here at E.S.A.
Eckists were allowed to post and share their views there.
Good or bad. So when it comes back up, that is probably
where I will go. Being an Eckist, and at the same time
posting here I have to try and talk about neutral topics. And
if I do share my religious experiences they will usually
always lead me into trouble on this venue because it will
put me out of the bounds of E.S.A.
I'm not avoiding the question, but only saying that it
would be an unfair and biased answer if I should try and
fit it within the theme of Anti-Eckankar only. Since when
are there only one side to anything in this world anyway?
good or bad? In my estimation there will always be good
and bad, or two sides to anything and not only one. Also
a middle. This is the paradigm on the macrocosmic and
the microcosmic levels in this world at least. IMO.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>