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

3030DEXTER Understood HK's Unisex Restroom Message!

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Nov 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,
      I was watching the recent episode of "Dexter," on Showtime,
      where Dexter went into a women's restroom to confront his
      ex-girlfriend. Dexter prevented a woman from entering while
      he spoke to Lila. The boyfriend of the woman (Dexter prevented
      from entering) came into the restroom and stated, "you aren't
      supposed to be in the women's restroom! Dexter just left without
      stating Klemp's seminar "change" message of, "Restrooms Are Unisex!"
      I was so disappointed with Dexter and the writers of the show!

      Really, I was almost expecting Dexter to say "Restrooms Are Unisex!"
      However, even Dexter isn't that imbalanced and, therefore, it would
      have been out of character for him!

      BTW- In case people don't know who "Dexter" is he's a serial
      killer of serial killers and is a blood splatter CSI expert with
      the Miami Police Department. A new episode airs ever Sunday
      night on Showtime, and reruns of that show are aired throughout
      the week.

      Thus, Dexter is as real as the ECK Masters or anything else
      that the imagination wishes to manifest. Don't take it so seriously
      it's all mostly entertainment and a distraction anyway! That's why
      religion is so popular... there's something for almost everyone!

      Prometheus
      p.s. I wonder if any ECKists have named their Teddy Bears "Mahanta,"
      "Wah-Z," or "Z?"


      prometheus wrote:
      >
      > Hi Kaye and All,
      > The main reason for Klemp to "share" this story at the 2007
      > EWWS is to use the "unisex" approach [non-femiNINE (female)
      > principle, non-negative, neutral vs positive] for his scheme
      > to slide Joan into the LEM position.
      >
      > However, aren't the "God Worlds of ECK" Pure/Positive
      > even though Soul has no gender! Anyway, the Lower Worlds
      > are Not supposed to have the same finer "vibrations" for
      > Soul, thus, the lower bodies that shield Soul from the coarse
      > vibrations. Therefore, this "positive" masculine (male) principle
      > counter acts the (lower) "negative" vibrations and this results
      > in a balance of sorts. [see feminine & masculine principle,
      > Eckankar Lexicon, pgs. 72 & 135]
      >
      > Of course, none of this is actually true to begin with! It's a
      > distortion of the Truth! BUT, IF the consciousness of the world,
      > as a whole, has "changed" for the better, thus, allowing Joan
      > (a female or eunuch?) to be made a LEM then WHY aren't there
      > More and Higher ECK Initiates?! Since this is a Kali Yuga and
      > heading toward the end (declining), then, shouldn't consciousness
      > be on the decline as well? I don't buy that either! This is the
      > problem with Religion and its dogmas!
      >
      > If Klemp didn't Need the help (in his old age and poor health),
      > nor had Joan around to help him, this "change" would not be
      > necessary... from an EK dogma p.o.v. This is because Eckankar
      > was Twitchell's "thing" and also why he hadn't foreseen the need
      > to pick a successor. Thus, PT hadn't had the time to complete
      > his plans for the future or to complete the rewrites and make
      > all of the needed "adjustments" (tweaking) as the org evolved
      > into a larger Religious corporation.
      >
      > Twitchell didn't mention the "Mahanta" to his chelas (let alone
      > a "full" Mahanta) until the January 1969 Wisdom Notes. However,
      > the real definition for this word is found in the book, "The Holy
      > Science" by Swami Sri Yukteswar of the Self-Realization Fellowship.
      > In the Introduction on page vi (copyright 1949, Seventh Edition
      > 1972) is this bottom page note by the publisher: "In 1894, when
      > this book was written, Babaji gave the author the title of 'Swami.'
      > He was later formally initiated into the Swami Order by the
      > Mahanta (monastery head) of Buddha Gaya, Bihar, and took
      > the monastic name of Sri Yukteswar. He belonged to the Giri
      > ('mountain') branch of the Swami Order."
      >
      > BTW - On the same page above this quote is this statement:
      > "At the request in Allahabad of the Great Preceptor (Mahavatar
      > Babaji) near the end of the present Dwapara Yuga, this exposition
      > has been published for the benefit of the world." Hmmmmm.
      > If you read on there are more and more terms used by Twitchell!
      >
      > Anyway, could it be that Twitchell's "Mahanta" is really just a
      > "monastery head" of a make-believe Order of Vairagi Adepts?
      > Probably! However, this also indicates that there are many other
      > "Orders" that are, at least, equal to (the myth of) this one! PT
      > just cornered one little section (Order or Myth?) of the market.
      >
      > Okay... back to Klemp:
      > Will he continue to be Reactionary or become Proactive
      > concerning the need for Unisex Restrooms as a means
      > to "change" consciousness? Or, was this just a ploy of
      > another insane Religious Leader? The Truth is out there!
      >
      > Prometheus
      >
      >
      > Kaye wrote:
      > I also would like to comment on HK and the "white haired woman"
      > in the ladies' room. I'm having a hard time understanding why he
      > would push this story. Has anyone seen him or his wife doing this?
      > He seems so concerned about legal problems- what would he have
      > done if she screamed and had an anxiety attack? What if it was
      > a mother with her young child and she called for security to report
      > a possible molester or kidnapper? What if he were reported by
      > people observing him entering an area where he clearly did not belong?
      >
      >
      >
      > *********************************************************************
      > shaylee wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello Everyone,
      > >
      > > This is Kaye again, I've been away from posting for awhile and was
      > > catching up with the activity here. Missed you all and just wanted to
      > > add my two cents worth if I may.
      > >
      > > I've always felt discouraged when people would offer these lame
      > > sayings when a person was in a bad way- "G_d never gives you more than
      > > you can handle" is especially annoying. Let's apply this
      > > "inspirational" phrase to an event from the news- the abduction and
      > > murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. For those who may not remember-
      > > this little girl was abducted from her bed by an ex-con with a varied
      > > history, including crimes of a sexual nature. He assaulted her and
      > > then buried her alive. There were four other adults present in the
      > > location of this heinous crime. Here's a link to this tragic story:
      > >
      > > http://www.karisable.com/jessluns.htm
      > >
      > > How could anyone, let alone a child, handle such a situation? If you
      > > posed this question to the clergy - I imagine they would blame the
      > > other people present - who did nothing to protect the girl. I can't
      > > disagree with that but I can imagine the clergy claiming that G_d gave
      > > them the opportunity to help this child and they failed. Or that the
      > > sex offender, himself, had the choice to stop. Again, I can't
      > > disagree. They would say that you should not question G_d's wisdom and
      > > remind you that "G_d moves in mysterious ways" They always give the
      > > Big Guy a free pass, don't they? Like HK they make big claims that
      > > don't measure up when the need is critical.
      > >
      > > Let's apply the same logic to a person in charge of a situation. Let's
      > > say that a swim coach was responsible for a group of students and one
      > > of them pushed a child who could not swim into the deep end of the
      > > pool. The coach then decides to send in the 2 of the worst swimmers
      > > who didn't really care about the child in to "save" him or her from
      > > drowning. They fail, save themselves and the child dies. Do you think
      > > that the coach would get away with this irresponsible behavior and
      > > depraved indifference? I guess that we hold people to a higher
      > > standard than G_d or other god wannabes.
      > >
      > > I also would like to comment on HK and the "white haired woman" in the
      > > ladies' room. I'm having a hard time understanding why he would push
      > > this story. Has anyone seen him or his wife doing this? He seems so
      > > concerned about legal problems- what would he have done if she
      > > screamed and had an anxiety attack? What if it was an mother with her
      > > young child and she called for security to report a possible molester
      > > or kidnapper? What if he were reported by people observing him
      > > entering an area where he clearly did not belong?
      > >
      > > On the lighter side, what if people thought that he and the little
      > > wife were cross-dressers, or drag queens? Wouldn't this be undignified?
      > >
      > > What can I say- once you see through the delusion- there's just no
      > > going back!
      > >
      > > I admire your persistence.
      > >
      > > Have a good weekend y'all.
      > >
      > > Kaye
      > >
      >
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic