5701Re: Krishnamurti - Another View
- Jan 31, 2011Hello Diana,
IMO-It is true that we first look
to our parents as authority figures
and then to teachers and to the
clergy, etc.. We are also taught to
see others as authority figures
such as the police or others in
our social, religious, and political
I'm not so sure about "peers"
since we need to elevate people
to a status higher than ourselves.
In college we had professors upon
pedestals, too, and then later when
I got to know some of these PH.Ds
and MDs on a personal level that
was corrected. The same takes place
within religion. Those deemed
"closer to God" or more "spiritual"
and knowledgable of the dogma
are held in high esteem, until, if
we're lucky we are able to see them
for what they are. At one time I had
certain ECKists upon pedestals and
as I learned more and had more clarity
of consciousness I saw through that
mindset and the error in that belief.
There are always "experts" out there
and/or those for us to admire, but
that's the problem. We can use what
others give us but we have to be careful
with placing them above us.
In Eckankar I was given one piece of
information, or a perspective, that
prepared me to see more clearly when
Ford came out with the truth about
Twitchell and the others including
Klemp. It was, "Soul equals Soul."
Once we take everyone down off their
pedestals that we've placed them upon,
or they've placed themselves upon, then
we can start seeing them as being "peer."
But, this isn't what they want us to see,
nor what we, ourselves, desire either!
Sure, many people have special talents
that either come naturally or with lots
of effort, but it still doesn't mean that
they are better than any of us. However,
one's ego wants and needs them to be
special and in control, plus, they like the
attention. For some people, even negative
attention is better than being ignored.
This is why some children act up. The
negative attention is better than none
Klemp likes attention but not the
responsibilities he's created for himself.
This is why he never takes responsibility
on any level even though he is responsible
for all decisions made at and coming from
the ESC. Instead, Klemp hits the ball back
into the court of the Initiates under him.
It's always their fault and their responsibility
and not his. HK's above responsibility and
"is a law unto himself."
But, if it wasn't for Darwin Gross Klemp
would either be a 7th or 8th initiate and still
be working at the ESC. He's nothing special.
But, now, he always has to let EKists know
who's in charge. He's always introduced, or
mentioning that he's the (14th Initiate) Mahanta/
LEM i.e. the ECK, the Godman. Then he says
I'm not perfect or I'm just like you and you
aren't to worship (me) the Mahanta. But,
when one is encouraged to have complete
reliance upon the Mahanta/God (Klemp) for
all things and to stare at his picture or to
dream about him, then, what does this really
say? I don't see a "Soul=Soul" or "I'm not
perfect" image being projected... just the
Anyway, this is the "trap" AND the "test"
that people go through. What we should
be doing is sharing this admiration and
high esteem with ourselves. Let's assume
that Soul equals Soul. Therefore, as Soul,
we can all share in the divine nature that
other Souls project. But, what about the
harm that Souls do to other Souls?
Life is both a series of traps and tests.
We try to do what's best, or we deem
best, while limiting the negative effects
of what both the traps and tests have
upon us. Sometimes we create or cause
our own traps and tests and sometimes
others, or nature, does that for us. It's
hard to say how much "karma" or divine
nudges are involved with this experiment
of life. It's a mystery that we have to seek
to uncover for ourselves and with a little
help from our friends.
The first people we look to for answers
is are parents. Then peers and teachers.
Always thinking some one must have
the answers to our questions. When
we become interested in finding God
we either follow are parents religion
or begin a search.
I don't know how many books I read,
paths I followed until I discovered
that if you are in your house you
don't need a path to find it. The book
Quantum Consciousness by Steven
wolinsky started me on the journey
back to myself. I can say from experience
that following someone else is a lot
easier plus you have someone to blame
if it doesn't work out!!!!
> Hello Etznab,
> Upon thinking about it
> I'd like to change a remark
> I made. I said, "But, people
> were never supposed to
> follow another." When I
> thought about this I saw
> that it was far from accurate.
> We started out being followers
> of stronger and more clever
> leaders and even in nature
> there are pecking orders. When
> we look at societies and clubs
> and organizations and political
> parties, sports teams, religions,
> etc. we can plainly see that humans
> tend to like, follow, and hold in
> higher esteem those stronger,
> faster, more skilled, smarter,
> knowledgable, or "spiritual"
> than themselves. Most of our
> opinions in these matters, of
> course, are subjective. And,
> they (we) tend to join groups
> of like minded people in order
> to feel good about ourselves.
> After all, 'Misery loves company;
> The more the merrier;' and, 'Might
> makes right!'
> But, unlike religion and other
> group endeavors, true "spirituality"
> is not a team sport or group effort.
> Eckists have been tricked into
> thinking that it is.
> prometheus wrote:
> Hello Etznab,
> I agree, religions were never
> supposed to be. The spiritual
> is individualistic, personal and
> unique to each Soul.
> People tend to see their own
> short comings and failures
> while putting others upon
> pedestals. They need to admire
> and worship a leader due to
> their own guilt and shame
> and laziness. Doesn't it usually
> takes less effort and thought
> to be a follower? Plus, people
> need hope when they experience
> inequities in government and/
> or in life.
> But, people were never
> supposed to follow another.
> They were to learn some
> things from others but see
> the lessons in their own lives.
> They are supposed to see
> and learn from their own
> tests. However, there are
> always those that take advantage
> of the weak minded and of
> opportunities to trick people.
> Most of these preachers, like
> Klemp, try to rationalize, at
> times, and claim they are doing
> good. But they know the truth
> behind the smoke and mirrors.
> Klemp is a conman and not a
> godman. And, at the same time,
> he's making a lot of money and
> will never share how much it
> really is with his flock of sheep.
> Jesus, supposedly, said that the
> kingdom of heaven is within...
> and then they made another
> religion out of his teachings
> when he was merely sharing
> the truth he learned for himself.
> Once religions get their hooks
> into people it's for life. Look at
> Eckankar. Supposedly at the 7th
> initiation one is free to leave, but
> when you read a bit further you
> see that you can't because of the
> fear of what could happen to you
> or shouldn't because of more greatness
> to come. It's that push/pull technique
> that Twit shared in Letters to Gail 3.
> After awhile ECKists start believing
> their own hype and the timid become
> almost as arrogant and self absorbed
> as the narcissists. All become even
> more delusional as time goes by and
> then they pass it on to the next generation.
> What ECKists don't understand, and
> refuse to see, is that belief in Eckankar
> is the actual trap/test and a continuation
> of the Wheel of 84!
> etznab wrote:
> Was updating some files recently
> and came across an old link. I read
> this years ago, but today it has new
> It has been my practice to listen to everybody, always. I desired to learn,
> the gardener, from the pariah, from the untouch able, from my neighbour, frommy
> friend, from everything that could teach, in order to become one with thebe
> Beloved. When I had listened to all, and gathered the Truth wher ever I found
> it, I was able to develop myself fully. Now you are waiting for the Truth to
> come - out of one person; you are waiting for that Truth to be developed, to
> forced upon you by authority, and you are worshipping that person instead ofthe
> Truth. When Krishnamurti dies, which is inevitable, you will make a religion,you
> you will set about forming rules in your minds, because the individual,
> Krishnamurti, has represented to you the Truth; so you will build a temple,
> will then begin to have ceremonies, to invent phrases.,dogmas, systems ofhuman
> beliefs, creeds, and to create philos ophies. If you build great foundations
> upon me, the individual, you will be caught in that house, in that temple, and
> so you will have to have another Teacher to come and extricate you from that
> temple, pull you out of that narrowness in order to liberate you; but the
> mind is such that you will build another temple round Him, and so it will goon
> and on. But those who understand, who do not depend on authority, who hold allby
> peoples in their hearts, will not build temples - they will really understand.
> Krishnamurti (IMO) was chosen (in his youth), groomed and propped up by the
> Theosophical Society to be some sort of "World Teacher". In the end, he
> apparently went his own way.
> "[....] His new direction reached a climax in 1929, when he rebuffed attempts
> Leadbeater and Besant to continue with the Order of the Star. Krishnamurti3
> dissolved the Order during the annual Star Camp at Ommen, the Netherlands, on
> August 1929 in front of Annie Besant, three thousand members, and a radiofor
> audience. In the so-called Dissolution Speech, he stated that he made his
> decision after 'careful consideration' during the previous two years, ... .
> I thought some interesting things were mentioned in the first link about Who
> Brings the Truth? My impression was that Krishnamurti was breaking away from
> dogma built up around him by others and was asking people to find the truth
> themselves. Interesting that.there
> Did Paul Twitchell, Darwin Gross or Harold Klemp do this for members and
> followers of Eckankar? Perhaps some of it in the wording of Eck teachings but,
> as the organization grew, so the "Mahanta" mythology also grew. Eventually
> would come a time (1980s) where people were asked (told?) to choose betweenone
> person or another. Darwin or Harold, it seems. And this kind of thing is notauthentic
> unique to Eckankar.
> Other groups have fought over succession, or who was the rightful and
> "Teacher". I'm not only talking Shiite and Sunni.Radhasoami
> The symbol of "World Teacher" was something become popular during the 20th
> century (at least). The latter 1800s and early 1900s saw numbers of people who
> later contributed to "spiritual movements" in some way. Sant Mat and
> evolved in parallel with other similar groups who looked to a form of"Teacher".
> And though the titles appear to be different, the concept appears basicallythe
> same. God's "so-called" representative on earth in the form of a singleperson,
> guru, master, etc. Is this what the heart of the teachings held? Or somethingthings.
> that so many people in a congregation created / made into a seemingly literal
> I'm not sure Krishnamurti was describing himself as a "World Teacher".
> It sounded (to me) like he suggested "The Beloved" was in all people and
> As a speaker, he reminded me about a number of other speakers that people hadto
> propped up as "this" or "that". And - much like them - Krishnamurti appeared
> say that "the truth was within".me.
> And so this is what it (Religion, New Age, etc.) appears to come down to, to
> That the "Teacher" is defaulting to the "Student" for the ultimate truth.the
> How ironic that people found all these teachings, and all these gurus, so in
> end they can be told NOT to follow them, but follow their own experience and
> inner guidance above all.
> Of course, it might help the followers if the teachers would admit to (and
> further clarify and correct) those elements of pseudo history / religion
> propagated by churches and groups. IMHO.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>