2205Klemp Recreates ECKANKAR
- Feb 1, 2007Hello All,
I've enjoyed reading the comments here. In "Those Wonderful
ECK Masters" Klemp contradicts PT's ECKANKAR Dictionary
definition and his own ECKANKAR Lexicon definition of ECKANKAR.
Klemp states in Chapter 10 on Paul Twitchell "A Master Compiler:"
HK: "Paul's task was to gather the time-tested [Old Lower World
Dogma] BITS and PIECES of the MOST ACCURATE parts of what
had been given in the PAST. In a sense, HE BECAME A MASTER
ME: I wonder what areas of Truth that he missed? Afterall, PT
was only human and far from perfect! And, just how "accurate"
are these "bits and pieces" since they are often taken out of
context and redesigned for the Western Mind and lifestyle?
Little League and Soccer anyone?
HK: "HE [PT] COLLECTED THE GOLDEN TEACHINGS SCATTERED
ABOUT THE GLOBE AND RENDERED THEM INTO A SINGLE BODY
OF TEACHINGS, THAT MADE THEM READILY AVAILABLE TO ALL."
ME: And, this COLLECTION/COMPILING or hunting and gathering
of "bits and pieces" of "golden teachings" was before the Internet!
This is why Twit could not have found it all.
Here's the PT/HK LEXICON definition of ECKANKAR that pertains
to HK's comments of PT "COMPILING" "SCATTERED" "BITS and
PIECES" of "golden teachings" from the "PAST."
"ECKANKAR... THE TOTAL SUM OF ALL TEACHINGS EMANATING
FROM GOD." [page 56] This was the Catch-22 disclaimer that HK
has now revised (when it suits him he'll bring it back into play).
I also find it interesting that Klemp says, "THE CONSCIOUSNESS
HERE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY IS AS VALID AS ANY IN
THE PAST." [page 184, TWEM] Didn't Klemp say that the Mahanta
Consciousness during Paul Twitchell's reign was NOT as high
as his is today and this is why much of the PT material is no
Anyway, I'll have to do a summary of that "Wonderful" piece
of crap some day.
On another note: I will have to say that it's interesting to read
about the visitations of JESUS that people had prior to
ECKANKAR and later became visitations by Gopal and Fubbi!
Now I can see the Gopal thing, sort of, but how in the hell does
someone pick FUBBI out when they first thought it was JESUS?
[page 36, TWEM] Really, just look at the pictures of Jesus, Gopal
and Fubbi and ask yourself, How can a person think they saw
JESUS and pick out a picture of FUBBI? Ever hear of - mistake in
identity, or needing glasses, or not paying attention to details?
And, if that's not bad enough HK even has FUBBI plagiarizing
JESUS' and uses JC's conversation with God.
FUBBI: 'God, why have you forsaken me?' "After awhile there
came a voice. It said, 'My son, I haven't forsaken you. I've been
with you through the ages.' And the lightning flashed and the
thunder rolled." [page 28, TWEM]
Strange, I've never heard of "God" being quoted or speak with
contractions like "haven't" or "I've." And this was, supposedly,
centuries ago! LOL!
One more thing: Isn't it interesting that in most Spiritual Exercises
(S.E.) that one is directed to IMAGINE. Yet, in the ECKANKAR Lexicon,
on page 136, is this definition of MECHANICAL MANIFESTATION:
"LYING, IMAGINATION, THE EXPRESSION OF NEGATIVE EMOTIONS
AND UNNECESSARY TALKING."
This reminds me of those ECK Vahanas on HU-CHAT. I'm certain
that a lot more "Mechanical Manifestation" will be taking place at
the 2007 ECK Springtime Seminar.
BTW- Why don't the African ECKists go on a pilgrimage to NAMPAK
instead of Chanhassen? Isn't Nampak closer for them?
"Nampak- Located in Africa, it is one of the ten spiritual cities which
are on earth to help the world." [page 146, ECKANKAR Lexicon]
Those ECK Masters have been doing a great job "to help the world"
> >Plus, it makes a good impression for the gullible
to read this in the bio flap when deciding to purchase the
> >Hi mish,
> Yeah. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the "who's who in..."
> series is a form of vanity press. But I suppose it might seem
> legitimate to the kind of people who buy their religion from the
> back pages of tv guide and deep cable infomercials.
> I have to say, I've never read any of HKs "books" all the way
> through. I could rarely even get through those mystic world notes of
> his or the H.I. letters for most of the time I was still getting
> them in the mail. It seemed like he was always nursing a black eye,
> or a stubbed toe, or grumbling about all the bad, ungrateful,
> karmically doomed chelas who just weren't "getting" the awesome
> godliness of his slick new reinvented religion. Harold's writings
> have always been about as dreary and inspiring as those old catholic
> tracts we'd get at church when I was a kid. They'd rant on and on
> about abysmally dull things like communism, birth control and
> endless booster club fundraisers.
> Harold's talks were a lot like his writing too as I recall. Did you
> ever notice that his talks all sounded alike after awhile? I used to
> say he was directly channeling "God's own bird-feeder secrets and
> kitty cat wisdom". I also remember he would offer lots of good
> advice about surviving and "winning" in the harsh game of eck
> hierarchy climbing. If you break it down, the spirituality of
> eckankar comes pretty much out of a "survival of the fittest/natural
> selection" paradigm. (Ironically, that would be considered Darwinian
> wouldn't it? - heh-heh).
> Ask any of his followers. They all cast themselves with basically
> the same cliche images of dominance. Check it out. Even the way the
> LEM has assumed "the rod" each time - always quite contentious and
> embattled. Darwin punked Paul by tagging his wife Gail. Harold
> knocked Darwin off the hay pile with the heavy guns of public
> slander and demonizing, coupled with plenty of legal fire power.
> That's the current that runs through - same as it always was. In the
> tradition, I wonder how the next one will rise and topple our boy
> It's funny actually how they get away with selling such obvious
> banality with the books, tapes and seminars - while at the same time
> convincing the followers they're beyond all the ordinary conventions
> and agreements of human life without ever producing a modicum of
> proof. Ever notice how everyone in eck sees themselves as an eagle,
> or a ram, or a swordsman, while non/ex-eckists are the teeming
> masses, the goats, foxes, jackals and worms? (Don't tell them Harold
> thinks of them all as a bunch of helpless dewey little chickens in a
> hen house.) Ever notice how everyone in eckankar is convinced they
> posess the penetrating insight and loftiest overview of the highest -
> even while repeatedly and demonstrably WRONG, or merely copping the
> off-the-shelf postures and verbiage of their h.i. sub-gurus?
> Ahhh. You gotta love 'em. May the godlings bless their copyrighted
> little hearts...
> naranjan's alibi
- << Previous post in topic