Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2084Re: ECK Higher Initiations Are a Mixed Bag o...

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    Jan 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      etznab@... wrote:
      > In a message dated 1/1/07 10:10:50 PM Central Standard
      > tianyue@... writes:
      > > What say you, dear critic of my heart?
      > Kent,
      > 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 the
      > 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 look

      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 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.

      Ah, but who stood in the shoes of those who were duped by all
      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 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.

      My understanding is that he was pressured into naming another.
      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
      such powerplays.

      > Some of the answers I would give to you about your question
      > don't think would be appropriate for this B.B. and would be
      > 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
      > Darwin are concerned. There are a number of bright points that
      > would naturally have to add in order to give the bigger picture
      > 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.

      From what I see, this is a forum participated in by adults who are
      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.

      > 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.

      I agree, but if everyone on such a site were exactly alike in their
      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.

      > 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.

      Odd that you should say this about the "truthseeker" group, since
      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 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.

      It is true that outside of eckankar and TS you may encounter
      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 it
      > would be an unfair and biased answer if I should try and
      > fit it within the theme of Anti-Eckankar only.

      You haven't been remaining within such a theme thus far, from
      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 when
      > are there only one side to anything in this world anyway?
      > good or bad?

      Absolutely true that there are many sides to nearly everything.
      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 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.

      Yes, but again, there is no fixed, static balance. One moment it is
      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.


      > Etznab
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic