2084Re: ECK Higher Initiations Are a Mixed Bag o...
- Jan 2, 2007--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
> In a message dated 1/1/07 10:10:50 PM Central Standard
> tianyue@... writes:preceeding
> > 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
> it. I know how after things are sent they don't always look thesame
> after they were composed. The context, who said what.Again, I think the context was abundantly clear. The material in
the post was all just one speaker, that being myself, unelss you
were referring to the text I left in from previous posts on the
thread. Sorry if that confuses you or annoys you. Different groups
have different customs. Some people become annoyed when
the rules are changed. We'll just have to disagree on this, okay?
I'm not all that concerned about this issue. I think it was fine. I'm
not interested in meeting your approval. I hope that doesn't
sound harsh, but I think thou dost protest too much.
> About Darwin, he had come and gone before I ever heard
> Eckankar. And what I have seen about him, it doesn't lookgood.
That is the Eckankar spin. How would you compare the eck
masters and their little pecadillos? Lets take inventory of these
great, magnificent beings:
1) Paul was a rampant plagiarist, a fabricator of personal
histories, and was allegedly having an affair. He invented a
religion with himself as Godman, and took money from children
who became members of his group without shame. He was
conserrvative and disliked long haired hippies. He supported the
war in Vietman, and didn't like people dodging the draft.
2) Darwin was a stooge who was in the right place at the right
time to become the next LEM. He was musical, liked jazz. He,
like Paul, was having an affair, so they're equal in that regard.
He hurt his back, took some pain meds (very common in our
society), and had some difficulty with the meds, or so the story
goes. He liked to flirt with women (as did the others). He was
strongly pro-choice, due to his strong science background.
Frankly, Darwin was the most progressive leader of the three.
2) Harold also had an affair and a divorce. He has a history of
attempting to disrobe at airports and deliberately jumping into
waters cold enough to end one's life from hypothermia, and has
enjoyed being the ward of the court in a mental facility, wherin he
fought with discarnate entities. He also drank heavily when he
was a third initiate, which led him to hallucinate large pink frogs
(or were they green?) and he felt he was "spitting in the face of
God," as he colorfully put it.
So, you somehow conclude Darwin "doesn't look good"? If he's
so bad, how do the others fare with you? How do you find it so
easy to reach that judgement, while so easily excusing the
others? I'd say they are a match made in heaven. Paul takes the
prize, however, for starting the whole thing off to begin with. Poor
Darwin and Harold are quite possibly the most pathetic figures
in this fiasco.
> Anybody looking at the history I imagine they will probably notAh, but who stood in the shoes of those who were duped by all
> see it as good either. But maybe they should have stood in his
> shoes and then they would have had a better idea why.
this? The thousands who've been misled? Or maybe that does't
> I wrote about this some time ago on another B.B. I found itMy understanding is that he was pressured into naming another.
> 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.
Frankly, in my view the ability to step back in certain crucial
moments in life is very wise. But in his case, it may not have
been entirely by choice. In any organization, there may occur
infighting and factions that disagree. Eckankar is not immune to
> Some of the answers I would give to you about your question
> don't think would be appropriate for this B.B. and would bebetter
> to address on another venue or by e-mail instead. The reasoneven
> being that I don't see a totally black sky where Eckankar or
> Darwin are concerned. There are a number of bright points thatI
> would naturally have to add in order to give the bigger pictureas
> I see it. But this is an "Anti-Eckankar" B.B. and I don't think itFrom what I see, this is a forum participated in by adults who are
> would be a fair and balanced description of Eckankar for me to
> give only the most critical parts. Not Eckankar as I see it.
capable of thinking for themselves, and I think you are likely able
to speak your mind, which it seems you are doing capably
enough. I've read many examples in groups like this by people
addressing eckankar's "bright" spots. It is only that on a forum
like this one, you may be subject to actually reading differing
points of view without that familiar eckankar conformity. It is more
stimulating, but also challenging. In some environments, that is
considered to be a bad thing. In others it is not.
>I agree, but if everyone on such a site were exactly alike in their
> 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.
sentiments and opinions, there would be nothing to discuss. Is
that what you want? If so, it would be very boring, I would think.
But again, I've read many instances on EckankarTruth, as well
as this forum and others, in which various sides of the issues
have been discussed. Sure there is conflict when this happens,
but that is natural, unless you prefer a more conformist
environment. Outside of the cocoon of eckankar, one must be
prepared for non-conformity. It can take getting used to for the
person overly aculturated to eckankar.
>Odd that you should say this about the "truthseeker" group, since
> 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.
I've heard several comments that there is editing of the posts if
they don't meet the approval of the moderator. One off my posts
was edited resulting in the removal of a paragraph. So, I think TS
is no different than any group in that respect. You may like that
group because there are far more people with whom you find
agreement there. It comes down to choosing the group that
conforms closest to your opinions, which makes you naturally
more comfortable. For those whose views are not as consistent
with those of the TS ideology, they may not feel as free there as
you may. I couldn't abide the place. Too stiflingly conformist; too
much like eckankar. But then, I've been out of the organization for
quite a while.
> Being an Eckist, and at the same timeIt is true that outside of eckankar and TS you may encounter
> 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.
more widely differing views. But frankly, sharing spiritual
experiences (yes, believe it or not, I've had many, some of which
are far, far different than the sort of thing disussed in eckankar or
on TS) is something I'd be careful about discussing anywhere,
especially in eckankar, in which experiences that may lead the
follower elsewhere are not smiled upon.
> I'm not avoiding the question, but only saying that itYou haven't been remaining within such a theme thus far, from
> would be an unfair and biased answer if I should try and
> fit it within the theme of Anti-Eckankar only.
what I've seen. But again, these sort of differences and invisible
boundaries exist in every group. That's why people are always
creating yet another group. They don't feel comfortable in the one
they're in. I suggest participating in different groups to satisfy
your different needs, which is what you're already doing, it
> Since whenAbsolutely true that there are many sides to nearly everything.
> are there only one side to anything in this world anyway?
> good or bad?
And it is also true that they are not all necessarily equal simply to
satisfy one's notion of a static, unchanging, forced balance. Real
balance is usually dynamic, always changing and revolving, one
moment over here, the next over there. I suspect your internal
balance on these issues is one day tipping one way, another day
tipping another. That's perfectly fine, and as it should be as your
views on these issues evolve.
>In my estimation there will always be goodYes, but again, there is no fixed, static balance. One moment it is
> 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.
day, then night, with the seasons changing, with longer days,
then shorter days. The centerpoint will likewise shift. It is not
fixed. To give an example far off the subject, to curtail global
warming, as an important issue, is not much thought of as a
centrist view, yet in my view those who care about the issue are
very balanced and in the center on this issue, though they are
thought to be extreme by many. It is often the majority who get to
decide where the middle is, but that is not at all the same thing
as balanced. Each person gets to decide what is balanced for
him/herself. It is often different for each of us.
Many of us who've left eckankar have gone through varying
phases with our opinions regarding eckankar. I was at first
ambivalent, then withdrew from eckankar but still liked the
philosophy, then had a growing understanding of the real harm
eckankar can do to people, then initially shocked at the treatment
of people on A.R.E., then speaking out, all of which took years to
occur. And my views will continue to evolve and change.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>