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

2379Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Rebezar Tarz is not found outside of Eck...

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Mar 23, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

         After initial responses to the recent Rebazar Tarzs thread, I wrote
      a much longer post and DID go out of my way NOT to post it here
      on E.S.A.

         It appears at times that even current "disgruntled" members of
      Eckankar who would vent frustrations anonymously here at E.S.A.
      are still "maligned" simply for the fact of not having "moved on" and
      become an ex-member.

         In the site description for E.S.A. would it better serve the people
      looking for closure if it simply said No Eckists Allowed?

         A person doesn't have to be an ex-member of Eckankar in order
      to be "disgruntled" or want to vent "frustrations" about some facets
      of the written dogma (Eckankar or not). Over the years I have come
      across many a member in Eckankar who took issue with some part
      of the literal teachings. In other words, people who had questions.
      It is probably inevitable for something like this to happen for people
      who follow any form of teaching, religious or not.

         You know all too well that Eckankar members and member sites
      will "generally" (repeat, "GENERALLY") not approach certain topics
      or directly answer questions in the same way(s) as ex-members and
      ex-member sites.

         Personally, I have chosen to look at both sides of the fence and
      not just one. I have also communicated with people on both sides
      of a number of issues. I have been maligned and complimented for
      my contributions. Both from Eckists and Non-Eckists alike.

         It is sometimes amusing to watch what goes on, or what goes
      back and forth on these sites that comment about Eckankar. At
      other times it is downright pathetic the ways that some people
      are spoken to.

         Some have argued that I should just come out and speak in
      plain language and be direct instead of asking many questions
      or appearing vague. But I have labored to find a middle ground
      by asking many questions instead of making only statements
      so that people would feel free to communicate their own point
      of view.

         In a certain sense, isn't a person almost obligated to take a
      middle position if they should want to "truly" see both sides of
      any issue? And if they do not take the middle ground but side
      with only one extreme, isn't that the same as trying to defend
      an exclusively biased view? Isn't that what creates lines drawn
      in the sand behind which defensive positions are erected and
      weapons of war are manufactured out of fear?

         Perhaps it is way too easy to forget that I had been acquiring
      a passion for researching history years before "Confessions"
      and years before asking very many questions in public bulletin
      boards about the history of Eckankar.

         You (I do) look at both sides when researching history.
      In many cases you almost have to in order to get the facts.
      You look in all the places that a person would naturally look.
      Even in the places where people don't want you to look. You
      look in places marked "off limits" or "forbidden", like in the
      movie "Planet of the Apes".

         I said: "You", even though I meant me. I can't speak for other
      people about what they have found or about their experiences
      according to them. There is only one way to do this sometimes
      if I don't know the answers. That way is to listen and try to hear
      what another person is actually saying and not what I only want
      to hear. It's not always easy. I try. And I know that many of you
      do too. Even at times don't try, but do. And do it well. Listen -
      even to my at times apparently incoherent babbling.

         Rebazar Tarzs (the "history" of which) is still a subject that I
      am asking questions about and becoming involved in discussions
      about because this character appears central to the continued
      integrity of the Eckankar line of Masters. IMO, if anything should
      happen to the current spiritual leader of Eckankar, the "power"
      would default to REBAZAR TARZS!!! As I believe it has in the past.
      Naturally I would want to gather as much history about Rebazar
      Tarzs as possible. Even to the extent of proving his physical or
      his non-physical existence (whichever is the case) if at all possible.

         Though it was addressed to Ingrid, this post is for E.S.A. and
      anybody who should read it.

         Thanks for the history that you shared on E.S.A. and for allowing
      me to visit and to even post here.






      AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic