6193Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)
- May 5, 2012BTW- Nacal and Usually Skeptical is (me) Prometheus:
A Calm And Peaceful Message For All
Please read this message in the calm and peaceful tone in which it is being
typed. I have really been for the most part enjoying the dialogue on this message
I would like to encourage Doug Marman to continue posting here. I think
gradually we can all learn something that will help us move toward a greater
We can do this together regardless of religious belief and possibly emerge in
a place with no fences. I have many friends from different beliefs and something
I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is that our differences don't separate
us as much as they used to. There is a coming together of sorts and a move
towards higher conciousness.
I have seen this come about through heartfelt sharing of ideas.
***A question for Doug. Is Patti Simpson still an Eckist?
I send all who read this my love
Thank you very much for the reply to the 5 questions that I asked of you. Also
thanks for looking through Paul Twitchell's writings and finding the same thing that I
found out about Paul not using the term MAHANTA until January 1969. It means a lot to me that you answered that question I ask a while back. I join Eckankar because the
Mahanta was the highest state of consciousness in this world and in the inner
worlds so said Paul Twitchell the 971st MAHANTA (the title he gave himself). I
still wonder why Paul would say such a thing. To me this is the biggest lie that
any person could say. To make up a line of Mahanta Masters, (highest state of
consciousness and God made flesh) what was Paul thinking of. O' well !!! I
guess the next time I see Paul in the astral library I will give him a kick in
PS..... Doug, next time you see Harold, could you tell him that Joey would like
to see Him start posting on The Truth Seeker Bulletin Board. It sure would be grand of
Harold to do so. Thanks again for your help.
Seeker For The Last Time
Another X`Eckist Story
I joined Eckankar in the early 80's, attracted partly because of their concept
of Soul Travel and left in the mid-90's. I had become a 3rd Initiate by that time. Because of
my outspoken aggressive remarks and asking too many questions about concealed facts about the organization, many wondered why the LEM had allowed me to reach that level.
Initiations and secret words and the idea that we need a Master, mean nothing to
me in this life because in my different existences I was connected to many of these
concepts. There were times I needed these secret words and initiations and a Master and
for those who need them now, it is OK. It is something many have to experience, if not in
this lifetime, in a different one.
In the mid-80's, I posted a few remarks on ARE. This was a good lesson for me,
because some of the die-hard ECKists attempted to attack me with their "sword from the
Sugmad" and "weed me out of the garden of ECK." I had no grudge against them because I
knew they would learn to open their minds. At the time, they believed in what they
did and that it was the right thing for them to do. I accepted it.
I hadn't been on ARE for a long time but a few weeks ago I was impelled to go on
it and out popped the information concerning Ford Johnson's book. In the past,
ECKist would say it was the ECK or LEM. I ordered the book, which I am enjoying now.
It brought back some memories of Eckankar.
I was very surprised to see some of the die-hard and long-standing
ECKists, including High Initiates, especially Nathan. This was a shock and it takes a lot to shock me. I am very happy for Nathan because we had communicated in the past. Nathan would make a very high class lawyer in this life(have no idea what he does). Boy, did he
swing that sword for Eckankar. He left nothing standing. But that was then and now is now.
I am happy, Nathan that you allowed yourself to open and move beyond the garden of
ECK. There is so much more to learn.
To some Eckankar is still a beautiful garden and I can respect that. I would like to stress that I have nothing against Eckankar and similar religions. They may be needed
for souls to grow.
I enjoyed reading the comments on this board..and I'll be back when I have time.
I'll sign off with the name I used to use on ARE - Seeker, for the last time.
A Few Responses
I've received a number of comments to my last post.
I will respond to some of the questions and comments.
I agree with you that no church, book or religion can replace the part of us
that knows. We also both agree on the importance of fearlessness in seeing
truth, and the importance of teachings with heart.
My lights are fine, as are yours.
To Joey Ward:
I don't do yes or no questions, but I will try to keep my answers short:
1. Did Paul Twitchell have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman
as he told the world through his writings?
I don't know how anyone could say who was highest or who is even higher than
another. So, I would never say such a thing, myself. I don't even think having the
highest state of consciousness should be anyone's goal. A person can gain a high state of
consciousness and be unable to make a living here in the physical. That's not very useful.
2. Does Harold Klemp have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman
as he is telling the world throught his writings?
Same as above, however, I will add this. I agree with the Sufis who say that there is what they call The Pole of The World. The Sufi teacher Ibn al' Arabi points out that this same principle applies at every level of human affairs. Another Sufi put it this way: "Just as there is someone who acts as the pole for the whole of humanity, so there are poles for every faith, community, occupation - even down to the level of towns."
We sense when we are near such people since they seem to represent and carry the
whole of the town or company or faith that they are a part of. Every age has
those who carry the whole of things for the world at every level. We connect to that
whole through their vision.
However, I don't believe in saying who the Pole of the World is, since everyone
needs to find this out for themselves. In fact, in most times through history the Pole
of The World was hidden. The Sufis say this as well.
3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works?
Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes.
4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on
them as if the Eck Master were saying them?
5. Who do you Trust to tell the truth about Spiritual truths? Pick one only.
I see all teachings as mines. The good ones are gold mines, but they all need to be sorted through to find the pure gold. I have found no outer teachings that are pure gold.
The only place to test the gold is within ourselves, when we try to use it in our lives.
You might point to an outer person. I would rather point to our inner knowingness to recognize truth. We often do pick it up from others, however.
You asked: "If you are not trying to undermine Ford and his book "Confessions of
a God Seeker," why did you give such a negative opinion about the book in The
Chanhassen Villager last November?"
If you read my comments to the Chanhassen Villager, just like in my last post, it is focused on the errors in what David Lane has reported and the unfortunate fact that Ford repeated these as if they were facts as David did. I am absolutely amazed at how far the distortion of truths from David Lane has spread. I was disappointed that the newspaper had not done better research, and that Ford had not as well, especially since David Lane himself suggested to Ford that he study my book more thoroughly to see what had been discussed via the Internet.
I am just as amazed at how quickly and completely people assume that I am some
kind of pawn in a battle or fighting some kind of war against Ford for pointing out
the errors. I guess this goes to show how far off perceptions of someone else's motivations
can be. People will imagine what my motivations are, but they are a million miles from
I do agree that some people like to win their arguments no matter what, and since I have no interest in that, this is exactly why I have said I would say no more about such things unless folks here were interested. From the responses I've seen, there doesn't seem to be much interest in what I was writing about.
I think you are right that we should all look at our motivations. I have certainly done so and have tried only to offer help in clearing up some of the confusions that have been going on for a while by getting to the facts. I have tried to stay far from criticizing anyone else's beliefs, although I do think some friendly dialogue in this area is good.
I think it is just as important to look at the motivations for bringing up my personal motivations. I have not questioned Ford's motivations, nor would I. I think his intentions are sincere. Getting stuck over another person's so-called intentions is often the way our Censor stops us from seeing another person's point of view fairly.
When we get so attached to our cause, anyone who says anything that appears to
interfere with our cause becomes or enemy. The motivations of our enemies are always wrong in our minds. Ask them and they would say the same about their enemies.
It is a sad fact that public dialogue over religious matters is almost impossible these days.
This was not true in America during its early days. Public dialogue was often lively and contentious, but never came to people disowning their neighbors or rejecting their families and friends like it does today.
As far as I am concerned, we are all friends here with a common interest in Spiritual Truth.
That is how I see it. And we will each decide for ourselves what is true, as we should.
You wrote: "You spend all of your time chipping away at the edges of the argument,
finding miniscule points of contention (a minor date discrepancy here, a location there)
but not once do you address the underlying core truth that is being and has been
expressed here from the very beginning."
Exactly right. So why is everyone getting so worked up about it? Why is no one
simply acknowledging the minor points and letting it go? These are not core truths,
just a matter of correcting errors in fact.
No, I don't agree that my "can't we all get along" message doesn't help us get at the truth. In fact, let me say it this way: If we can not listen to those who see things differently than we do, then we will never see Truth. This doesn't mean we should all agree, but it certainly
does mean that we should be able to hold respectful and friendly conversations
with those who have a different way of seeing things. We should be open to learning from
You wrote: "Your method is to find a few unimportant discrepancies and use them
as an attempt to discredit the entire revelation of overall truth discovered."
This is incorrect. I am only trying to point out the errors. I am not trying to discredit the entire message. But clearly, after we have seen the facts for what they are, the overall picture does change somewhat. That's natural.
Since so many of David Lane's claims are in fact not based on facts at all, but merely
on imagined intentions and speculations, I have also offered other possible interpretations.
My point is not that David's guesses are wrong and mine are right, but simply to
show how widely interpretations can vary when there are no facts.
You are the one who is painting a picture of black and white, not I. I don't see David
or Ford as all wrong, nor as all right. I say let's find the gold wherever we look.
Why blame anyone for the fact that everything they offer is not pure gold?
Lastly, you suggest that I am defending a teaching and that I am an apologist.
Okay, perhaps I am. I don't feel that is what I am doing, but I can see it would
look that way to you. But surely you see that your comments are the same. You are
also defending your beliefs. In fact, everyone who has responded to my post on this
bulletin board has picked at what I would call minor, technical details and
completely avoided my points. This doesn't mean you or anyone else here is any less
sincere, does it?
You asked: "Where do you ever give a reference or a quote from your sources?"
They are in my book, and have been thoroughly discussed on alt.religion.eckankar
and can be found in the records there. I would be glad to present them here as
well, if anyone was interested.
You asked: "Why have you returned without answering the questions posed to you
by site members in previous postings? When did Twitchell first write about the
Was it 1969 as one site member has stated?"
I answered last time that I had just moved to a new home and my files were still
packed in boxes. They are still packed in boxes, but a few are handy so I pulled out
Paul's old Wisdom Notes and Illuminated Way Letters.
You seem to be right. Paul didn't use the word, Mahanta, until the January 1969
Illuminated Way Letter and the February 1969 Wisdom Note. Before then he mainly used, The
Master, Spiritual Traveler, Teacher, etc. Not even the mention of Living ECK
Master very often, although Outer Master and living Master were mentioned often.
This is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
You wrote: "You are also being untruthful when you say that you, " have no
desire to interfere with the beliefs of anyone."
And how would you know that? You seem to know my own desires and intentions
better than I do. Clearly I will need to ask you next time what my intentions
and desires are.
This is foolishness. Do you realize how hard it is to know the desires of your
How often do parents misunderstand what their children are trying to do? Have
you never had this happen to you when you were a child? Yet you think you can
actually guess my desires, when you don't even know me? Have we even met?
Why do people spend so much time imagining they KNOW the intentions of those
they disagree with?
I see this with ECKists just as often as with David Lane and the group here. So,
I'm not picking on this group. I see it as a real trap and an excuse to justify
rejecting what another person has to say.
You wrote: "You also claim to "have enjoyed the conversations on this bulletin
board" and yet you only respond to selective questions."
That's right. That was what I came here to share, after Ford claimed that I was
not after the kind of truth that could be discussed openly and that my book was
not about encouraging open dialogue. I came here for just that kind of dialogue,
but guess what? No one here wants to discuss the facts or the errors openly.
If I were Ford, I would care enough to make sure the facts I was using were
accurate. I thought, especially as a lawyer, he would want to know.
You wrote: "You attempt to confuse (like Paul and Harold) by twisting and
abusing truth in order to blind the reader with your distortions and illusions of reality."
If you really believe this, then why not point out a quote where you feel this
is what I am attempting to do, rather than making broad accusations about my
motivations? Why not just address directly what what I am saying and point out
how you see it differently? I have no intention of twisting the truth in anyway
You wrote: "Is what Harold's teaches (Eckankar) a myth?
"Since I brought the subject up can you tell me if the Holocaust was a myth or
"Some things ARE black and white so just give a yes or no answer to the
previously mentioned two questions. Please, no long-winded explanation, yes or
no to each question."
Sorry, I don't do yes or no answers, but I'll be glad to discuss your questions.
Yes, I would say a lot of what is taught about Eckankar is a myth. Yes, I think
a lot of what people think about the Holocaust is made up of myth as well. This
doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that many of the stories or
facts are lies. It just means that people often try to simplify things.
History is largely made up of myth. There are a million personal individual
stories about World War II, for example, yet the history books treat it as one
thing that happened. The people who go through it don't see it the way the
history books do. They were there, but the myths are what we can deal with to
understand. Otherwise it is too complex.
You wrote: "Doug, instead of focusing on David Lane or Ford's book let's now
focus on the writings of Twitchell and Klemp and see where we can find
inaccuracies, or is the world still flat to you? Did you like the posting from
the May-June-July 1971 Mystic World about Twitchell? "No one really knows for
sure where he came from, when he was born, or if his true name is even Paul
Twitchell. How long he has been on this Earth planet is not known." Or, how
about this quote from the same article, "Paul is known to the world as Peddar
Zaskq, which is his real name, is an occidental." Wasn't this also his name for
his last incarnation and his spiritual name?"
Obviously we now know where he came from and was born (Paducah, Kentucky) and
that his true name was not Paul Twitchell, but was John Paul Twitchell. We also
now know when he was born (1909). Paul certainly didn't ever talk about these
things, nor would he answer questions about them directly, and I think he liked
the idea that his past was mysterious, and he helped to create this mysterious
past. Yes, Paul is only known to the world as Peddar Zaskq because he told the
world that was his spiritual name.
And yes, this is the kind of writing that is mythological. Did you think I would
say something else?
You went on: "Let's now go back up to the preceding paragraph since you seem to
claim to like "facts" (why don't you give your sources?). "But it is a fact that
his Master Rebazar Tarzs, an ancient Tibetan lama, who appears to be in his
early forties, was a young man when Columbus discovered America." Now, was that
really a "fact," or a delusional belief, or a deliberate lie? Or, is it that,
"There is a need of the people to believe in the magic of a saviour, and Sri
Paul Twitchell knows this and acts out the part" (same article)."
It certainly is no fact, since there are no records nor anything else to prove
that Rebazar Tarzs even exists, never mind how old he really is. However, there
is no proof that it is a lie, either. It certainly sounds far-fetched. But I
don't think the belief in saints, saviors and spiritual teachers comes from the
desire to believe in magic. I think it comes from the innate memory within Soul
that there is a truth and meaning to life that most of the world seems to have
forgotten, but some remember.
As Rumi once said, the reason that false gold is so popular is because there is
such a thing as real gold.
Of course, mixed with this is that many people want a father figure, or want
someone to take care of them and tell them what is right and wrong.
You wrote: "The sad thing is that there is no freedom in religion there is only
control through the use of fear and surrender of the common sense of having an
open mind, and of course, the dangled carrot of initiation and hope."
It certainly seems that way. To me, without freedom there is no point to a
spiritual teaching. It is simply a social group. There is more peer pressure and
more influence from the people who want everyone to be harmonious rather than
speaking honestly, than control from above, but in general I agree with you.
You wrote: "Paul states, "Ramaji was one of the first initiates in the ancient
Order of the Vairagi." It seems Paul has a problem spelling his name. "Ji" is a
Hindu suffix used to denote respect and affection. But, Paul is not speaking of
Why do you think that Paul is referring to someone different than Rama? The
Hindus often add the "ji" to the end of a name, and sometimes it is written with
only the "j". Take the name Shamus-i-Tabriz. Generally this is spelled, Shams of
Tabriz. Same person. Jalalludin Rumi is spelled dozens of ways. Sometimes he is
also called Mevlana. Same person. Sometimes it is written Shabda Yoga, sometimes
Shabd Yog. Sometimes Yoga is spelled Joga. I interpret this quote from Paul to
be referring to the same person as Rama, but if you feel otherwise I would find
it interesting to hear why.
You asked: "By the way, why has Harold evaded giving his birth date and age?"
I don't know. Probably because it is a personal fact that has nothing to do with
his role. But maybe it is just a hold-over from Paul. You would have to ask him.
My guess is that he doesn't want people holding birthday parties because of his
You wrote: "Also, why is it Doug that on page 282 that Harold, the mahanta,
doesn't even know today about an experience he had in1970. He states, "Was he
really an ECK Master? Who can say?" Shouldn't the Master who is greater than the
God of all religions know such things?"
I would have to read the whole quote in context. It sounds to me as if Harold is
asking a rhetorical question. In other words, who can say if he was a Master
Actually the question I ask is how did Darwin know that he was the Mahanta, or
how does Harold know this? Isn't this like any initiate who might think they
have gained the next initiation? Isn't this the same question? How do they
You ask: "Are the initiations in Eckankar valid as a means to greater spiritual
growth over those who are non-eckists? Or, is this a myth too?"
I think the initiations are a mixed bag. There is definitely reality to them,
from my personal experience. But they have become filled with myths as well. I
can tell you that real Self-Realization is rare, HI or not. The initiation level
doesn't prove anything. It is more meaningful as a personal matter than a
comparison to others. I don't think anyone should be judging another person's
worth or truth by what initiation level they are at. Including the Master.
You asked: "Paul states on page 136 of Difficulties Of Becoming The Living ECK
Master, "Cause with all of that, see, I write books in series. I have four books
that are finished now; well, the Shariyat is a continued writing, but I've got
three books actually." So Doug, where's book three? If it wasn't finished why
didn't Harold go to the Astral Library to finish it?"
Paul wrote a number of the first chapters to book three. I think he got to chapter three or four. That's as far as it has gotten. I think that Harold thought about completing book three but for some reason decided it wasn't his place to do so. I would be surprised if Harold ever finishes book three, or tries to. But you would have to ask him if you wanted to know.
You wrote: "Was the "Moon Virus" that Twitchell warned of a myth or a self-promotional lie, or did he make an erroneous assumption or was it just conjecture (page 234 of "Difficulties")? Show me where Kirpal Singh's name is used with Sudar Singh's?"
I have no idea where Paul got the idea of the Moon Virus from. He certainly used
it to gain some news. It is similar in some ways to the HIV virus in the way it
has stumped the scientists, but I have heard no connection to the moon.
Here is the first quote of Paul's where he mentions Sudar Singh, from the
January 1964 Orion magazine:
"I began my study of bilocation under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in
Allahabad, India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of old Delhi. Both
were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is called the Yoga of Sound Current. I
had to learn to leave my body at will and return, without effort..."
Here is another quote from my book:
"I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that show the same
thing: An article that ran in early 1966 called, Can You Be In Two Places At The
Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh, from Allahabad, India, along with Bernard of
England, a Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in Maryland, Kirpal Singh of
Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a Tibetan monk.
"The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the November 1964
issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul talks about Rebazar Tarzu
[sic], who he "made contact with...through bilocation," and Kirpal Singh as his
teachers. These examples clearly show that both Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs
were referred to, side by side with Kirpal Singh. It was not until late 1966
before Paul suddenly stopped referring to Kirpal Singh."
You wrote: "You mention that you talked to Patti Simpson and basically she says
it was "funny" how Paul would evade giving out information on himself. You wrote
that Paul tried to leave information blank "when it came to filling out official
forms," but found that, "they would gladly accept whatever he wrote whether it
was right or wrong." In truth, Paul intentionally lied and mislead people.
Ironically, this is one "fact" that you have supplied to help prove the validity
of David Lane's claim! This is also proof that you don't even listen to your own
words! Perhaps, this is because your conscious subjective (self) is to evade,
and your unconscious objective Self (God-Soul) is to impart truth."
If you want to imagine that, go ahead. I think there is a big difference between
someone who is intentionally trying to mislead people about their age, and a
person who refuses to give out their age. But if you want to say that both are
technically lies, that's fine with me. It seems to me that you are just trying
to make it look like something it isn't.
Remember, the picture that David painted is that Paul lied to Gail about his
age, as he had lied about his age his whole life. In fact, Gail knew perfectly
well that Paul wasn't giving out his age, and so did everyone else. Pretty
different picture if you ask me.
Here's a similar example. David was accused of copyright infringment many years
ago (ironic, isn't it?). It was over a book written about J R Hinkins group.
Under oath he said one thing. In his deposition, also under oath, he said the
opposite. The judge politely said that his testimony was untrustworthy. David
claims that he was not trying to lie, he just didn't remember it correctly.
However, the testimony shows that the first story he told seemed like the one
that would best help his case. Later it turned out to be exactly the wrong
thing, so when asked the same question in court, he answered the opposite way.
He lost his case over this.
Would you call that lying? David doesn't. I'll take David's word for it that he
just forgot, even though it looks otherwise. I guess that's just how I am.
You wrote: "Doug you have imagined facts through your own distorted belief
system of myth being reality. You seem to be confused as you spread confusion to
others (somewhat like Typhoid Mary).You have no idea of what fact or truth is
because you are unable to hear truth."
Mighty big claims. Why not just show me the quotes where you think I'm off base
and share how you see it? Why imagine that I am unable to see truth?
I'm sure I see it differently than you do. But I have few illusions about Paul.
My point was to show how many illusions that David had, while claiming
otherwise. Ford's book has got them now, too, since he was taken in by David's
story. The irony is that those who are most concerned about pointing out the
lies and illusions of others are often just as unwilling to admit and correct
However, if you feel that I've made any errors, please point them out. David
caught a few, and I immediately corrected them. I would like to make my book as
accurate as possible, and I'm in the process of making another edit to include
the latest information, since we are always learning new things.
Thanks for asking specific questions. More of this would make a real dialogue worthwhile. And I am glad to share the specific evidence behind my comments if anyone is
Be The Now!!
If you are a follower of the Clear Light and Silent Sound, then you follow the
natural order of who you really are as Beingness. The secret between the truth
and the lie, is intention. Intention is the prime mover of awareness. How many
really see themselves as the observer and the observed, the now, the present.
Look only to the temple within yourself, no church, building or outer temple
will ever point the way. In fact remove or demolish all these objects of glory,
pride and self righteousness for in the heart of the now resides the gift.
"Remind all those that show you the way to the false temple of mortar and brick
that you have out grown their cage and See now with the Spiritual eye only
NO RELIGION can hold GOD to a given doctrine! Even the doctrine of Light and
Freedom can not be bound and Freedom will destroy all that try to hold it.
Man is a funny creature, he seeks the company of the one and only primal cause
even until death. He is even willing to kill to be near to it. He believes that
distance exists between himself and his Maker and he must make a journey back to
the Godhead. Knock, knock, is anyone home? Soul exists because it is GOD. God
has never posed the question, "I love Soul". Your Higher Self JUST IS, no more
- no less.
Dance, Sing and Be.
"All thing must pass away" George Harrison
Hold on to the social consciousness if you must but as Ford and Gram are saying
they only opened the door you must walk through and see Freedom for yourself. Not their
truth, but yours.
After the Temple of Eck was built, I made a number of visits to it. On one of my
visits I noticed that the temples main entrance floor was cracked right down the
middle. Eckankar had it repaired, so no one had any idea what had happened. If
that had occurred in my life, I would have asked what Spirit was saying to me?
Well I did .. What it told me was that the office(ORG) and the temple
side(Spiritual) had a major division between them. Another way of seeing it was
that the true teachings of Eck were no longer within the organization.
Fear is the last thing to go Pure awareness of consciousness can only be
experienced without fear.
The events unfolding before us have the blessing of the Holy Order of the World
Adepts or it would not be.
This is not an end to something, but more of a beginning.
Solipsist Reprieve: My Story -- Why I Left Eckankar
Soul, if It exists, could have entered into the agreement to share the Eckankar
dream. The purpose may have been for spiritual experience: to advance
spiritually and learn to be of service in a better and higher way and to
consciously learn a few other things, like the nature of illusion and deception.
But if I believe that soul exists, then I am asking for another round of belief
lessons. I had spiritual experiences, but how do I know that they are real now?
All I know is that I am here now and even those two adverbs are suspect.
Now it is the age of Aquarius and the Piscean age is over. Some astrologers say
that the religions of the intercessor between man and God were an aspect of the
Piscean phase. It is a strong aspect of the Aquarian age that the veils of the
intercessors be lifted. And it implies a dark night for the wizard who commands
his followers to "ignore that man behind the curtain." It is a bright day for
expose' writers. Since reading the book, I have seen other works that expose
Christianity and Judaism. All the political books are pointing out lies told by
the governments and the other party and the history books. For the Christians
out there: your version of "Confessions" may be the works of Timothy Freke and
Peter Gandy. Lies and damn lies. All religions are of the cloth of deception,
regardless of whose face is on the master.
So it appears that Eckankar has decided to maintain its position as a spiritual
middle school. We all saw this coming, felt it in many ways and Ford
articulated it for our minds in a way that we could no longer ignore. We knew
about David Lane and some of the plagiarism years ago and chose to forgive it.
We wondered why Rebazar couldn't appear for a TV spot, if he was so physical.
We were uncomfortable about Darwin being written out of history. The
When I went to receive my fifth initiation, the internal phrase kept repeating:
"The bloom is off the rose. . . the bloom is off the rose." I wondered what
that meant, but the meaning is emerging. The days of believing in Santa Clause
are past. Time to take the next step in becoming emancipated. Joseph Campbell
said that his studies gave him an overview of the myths and religions that
precluded his having any spiritual experiences himself. It is like the old
saying that he who carved the Buddha cannot worship it.
But I had just finished the book and was casting about and asked spirit if it
was true. The image of an animated Rebazar peered headfirst into my inner
vision and then started to mirror every movement I made. I had never had an
experience with him, but the message was that I was doing it and so I might as
well quit struggling against the curriculum. "No more Mother Goose stories for
you and you can pretty much forget about the tooth fairy," it told me.
Now I suspect why Harold is always telling fairy tales. I see an image now of
Paul laughing, after telling his audience that only a handful of them would
understand what he was trying to say. What if he was trying to say that only
deception exists in the world of illusion? Is Harold hinting that the teachings
are a fairy tale used to teach a different lesson?
Masters and lying liars do not come clean. But there may be more to this
learning than is apparent. What if Harold had told us that he had discovered
the truth about the whole sham and just said,
"Well, you can call me Harold or you can call me Gerald, but you doesn't have to
call me Sri anymore." Would that have been masterful? I do not know, but he
didn't say that. He built a temple instead.
One of the wake-up calls for me was an Ask-the-Master session for RESAs in one
of the recent books. Those guys didn't know anything. They were asking
questions and Harold was describing worlds and temples and I would like to think
that RESAs should have been able to access that information themselves, if the
path was working.
But no mastership is happening here. With Eckankar producing only two and a
half masters in almost 38 years, I was starting to worry that I wasn't on the
short list, anyway. We're all better than we were and we are better public
speakers, but that is not what we came for.
We came onto the path because it promised mastership/enlightenment. One of the
unspoken truths is that we don't have a chance of reaching it by way of
Eckankar. It has been boiling us like frogs: slowly. By the time we have been
around long enough to know that no one is going to go beyond the 8th initiation,
except one guy, our minds are no longer independent enough to get that this path
to mastership is not working and it not going to work.
Now we have talked ourselves out of a way of life. Harold would probably say we
have talked ourselves into a Dark Night of Soul. But that's the kind of beating
we would be in for if we stayed around.
I took a class with a lot of law enforcement types at one time. They said that
everyone, except the most committed sociopath, has a need to tell the truth.
The body language, tonal patterns and eye movements combine with other
unconscious clues to betray a lie or a concealed truth. One way to conceal and
deceive is to tell nothing but lies like Kevin Spacey's character in "The Usual
Suspects." This may be how Paul Twitchell did it. There is a book about this
subject called "Telling Lies" by Paul Ekman. It has been staring at me from my
bookshelf for years and it has gradually dawned on me that the title and author
may contain a hint.
My inner voice says that there is only the one I Am that smears itself across
the living tapestry and reabsorbs itself after one lifetime or many. So this
baby is going out with the bath water.
Thanks for tipping the scales.
Reply to GPk: On Unloving Attitudes
As to your unloving and lack of understanding attitude, I based that on what you
said, especially in regards to your unkind words to Usually Skeptical.
You also seem to be putting down people who are posting here on this message
board. You continue to direct negative comments to others on this site. You come
across as a very angry person so I am not surprised that my comments bothered
you so much. You confused me because you sound like you are still an Eckist in
You are wrong in assuming I'm stuck/holding on to the teachings of Eckankar. I
was not a member that long, but I read all of Harold's transcripts and several
other books, attended Satsang classes, etc. From the get-go, it seemed like a
lot of double talk and confusing--lots of contradictions. Your postings also
attack Ford in that you said he was going to become the leader of a new
religion, that would be no different from any other group. I think you are the
one hung up on Eckankar. I am glad you are reading Ford's book. Then, I think
your comments here would be made with a better perspective, regardless of your
take on Ford's writings.
It is obvious that the only self awareness that you have ever achieved has been
of the little self. You seem to be still experiencing the brain washing of
Eckankar. The comments that you have made indicate that you are only aware of
the little self, rather than the higher self. Your initiation did not give you
self-realization. This is the flaw I see in your reasoning. But this is all
understandable because of the length of time you spent in the Eckankar
organization--you have more to dump than I do. There is a massive amount of
flawed concepts along with certain truths that have been mixed to such a degree
that it is almost impossible to decipher it all. In addition to anger, there is
fear that there is no truth out there--that you will not be able to find it.
This is, perhaps, the root of your negativity that you have lashed out on this
site. This is my understanding.
Also, I have not touted the degree of my spirituality as you have. I am only a
Best regards and good reading,
FS Response To Ecki99 Plus 2 Laws
Thanks for the thorough response to the questions raised by Ecki99 and others.
As one other book (Christian Bible) often quoted notes "by their fruits ye shall
know them". Why do so many Eckists see the activities of HCS and former
members of Eckankar as a threat? There are no lawsuits filed, there are no
media exposes, there is just the statement of spiritual truths as experienced by
those who have taken the next step. There is no massive attempt to force Eck
chelas to leave their path, if that is where they are comfortable. To each his
Harold has made much of Richard Maybury's two laws namely:
1. Do all you say you will do. (Your word is your bond, honor it.)
2. Do not encroach on others or their property. (Respect the integrity of
I really like these two laws, since they contain so much of spiritual truth in
so few words. And this world would surely be a much better place if they were
practiced by more people as individuals, by nations, and by spiritual paths.
Perhaps the organization of Eckankar and its leaders should consider how well
they are honoring these two laws, especially in regard to former members and
also in regard to current members.
Response to Eckie_99: The Real Impact of Eckankar Mythology and The Role of HCS
I may be starting to look predictable with the way I present my views to this
website, but, as many of the questions put to this site are in defence of
eckankar mythology, then one way of replying to these questions is to use the
very mythology that is being defended in order to express the truer side of
eckankar, the side the mahanta does not want to be seen. This reply therefore
will be no exception. I feel sure that this will meet with your approval.,
seeing as I am using the constructed, contrived, compilations of the master
compiler, one Paul Twitchell.
I quote your own words:
b. A Person who builds a framework that can help people grow spiritually, and
shows it to the world, to be judged on its own merits.
There is one point that you have failed to address in your defence of eckankar
being a framework that can help people grow, and that is, `The growth of people
spiritually within the framework of eckankar is dependant on Harold's acceptance
as to what he sees as spiritual growth, or more accurately stated, what he is
prepared to accept as `Truth.' I will therefore show to the world, and to you,
another side of how this framework of eckankar really operates in helping the
individual grow spiritually, and let the world judge it on its own merits.
Firstly, let the world see some of the teachings of eckankar that will be
relevant to this reply.
ME: This is a false premise.
Klemp plays the role of a
hypnotist and magician.
Any "spiritual growth" is
made by the individual
and despite Klemp's
interference via codependency.
Shariyat book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
"Without the clear vision of the Vi-Guru- he who is the Master- and the tests
given by him, one cannot be assured of what he sees or hears. Every Spiritual
Traveller, or Vi-Guru will give the Word to the chela to call upon the Master.
If the vision fails to reply then it is false".
Shariyat, book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
"Be on guard, lest he who seeks without the Vi-Guru finds those who only appear
as the Holy One, claiming to be angels, or saints. Let none deceive the chela.
If he who seeks is a chela of a Vi-Guru, he cannot be deceived by the kal
Niranjan. If he has not the armour of Spirit, he can be misled".
Shariyat, book 1, page 149. Third Printing 1972:
"The ECKist knows that the presence of the Living ECK Master is always with
him. He is never alone".
What is presented here to the world, and yourself , is the truth of my own
experience while within this framework of eckankar and its leader, the mahanta.
Here is part of my letter to Harold Klemp in regards to my journal of recorded
inner experiences that was sent to him while following this framework of
eckankar, that you say, " can help people grow spiritually",
"All that is contained within the journal has withstood the tests of the secret words that are required to be used to prove their validity and all that you are about to read, I stand by as true."
Now friend, let the world see what the teachings of eckankar say about the inner
experiences of a chela and how they are viewed within this framework.
"The Shariyat book 2, pages 50-51: Second Edition 1988:
"No ECK Master will acknowledge his appearance to another person. This is
neither modesty nor is it a feeling of hiding something; in a sense he is
letting the individual decide for themselves whether it was really him. He
wants them to decide if it was reality. In this way he is not telling, nor
confirming his presence with them in the Atma Sarup, but allowing them the
independence of knowing and understanding whether it was actually him.
If a person makes up his mind that the living ECK Master really appeared to him,
then he knows it and this cannot be taken away from him, regardless. However,
if he has to be told that it was the ECK Master, then he is always in doubt, for
it was an outside source which gave him his information and not himself. It is
superficial knowledge and not from his own inner source.
He must always remember that the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master is not the one
to tell him of his inner experiences, nor whether the ECK Master has appeared to
him. But he must know this with a faith that is beyond anything that he has
experienced and, therefore, it will stay with him. Otherwise it may fade in
time, and the experiencer soon forgets whether it was really the ECK Master".
Now let the world see the reply from the leader of this framework of eckankar
that helps the individual to grow spiritually.
Reply from Harold Klemp in regards to my journal of inner experiences while a
chela under his claimed protection as the mahanta.
"In response to your letter and journal of inner experiences which led you to
think you have received the Rod of Eck Power. You have not.
Your instincts were right not to believe this. The Kal misled you."
Let it be explained to the world, and your own good self, that there was never
any claim made to me having had received the rod of eck power, only that it was
a possibility. Therefore, before we go any further, Harold Klemp is wrong in
his statement. Now we must look at his other words, those of `The Kal Misled
You`. Now friend, after being told I was misled by the kal, even though I have
Harold's assurance that, `If he who seeks is a chela of a Vi-Guru, he cannot be
deceived by the KAL Niranjan.`. he then fails to explain how this could have
happened and failed to give any further guidance as to what I could do to
prevent it happening again, although as we can see by the promise of this
framework, I should never have been misled in the first place.
Having now told me I was mistaken, Harold then goes on to lay the karmic
responsibility upon me for being responsible for leading others off the path of
"This happens more often than one would care to believe. People who fall for
this trick and mislead others off the path of eck become responsible for the karma."
Let the world and yourself take note of these words, for we are told something
very interesting here; "This happens more often than one would care to believe."
Are not these words very thought provoking? Is Harold admitting that being
misled by the kal while within this framework of eckankar,and, having his
protection of the Vi-Guru, being misled by the kal is a common occurance? If
this is so, then the claimed protection of the vi-guru must be failing to work.
Not only that, the secret words must also be failing. Let the world see what
eckankar has to say about the protection of its secret words:
Shariyat book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
"Without the clear vision of the Vi-Guru- he who is the Master- and the tests
given by him, one cannot be assured of what he sees or hears. Every Spiritual
Traveller, or Vi-Guru will give the Word to the chela to call upon the Master.
If the vision fails to reply then it is false".
Let it go on record that the visions within the journal's inner experiences did
reply and that I used the Word, and Words as is asked of the chela. Some of
these words being Sugmad, Wah Z, HU, Mahanta, or any of the names of the masters
of the vairagi.
Here I think we should let the world know just how important this figure of the
mahanta, the vi-guru really is, otherwise they may not fully realise just how
powerful the mahanta truly is?
Shariyat book 2 page 196. Second Edition 1988:
"The eck works are the most powerful in this world; and the mahanta, the living
eck master, who is the vehicle and channel for the eck, is the most powerful
being within the physical world, as well as the planets and all the planes
within the worlds of God."
Shariyat, book 1 says on page 81. Third Printing 1972:
"He is stronger than any man in intellect or spirit, for he has unlimited
power, and yet this strength is combined with the noble virtues of the humble
and gentle. All people find in him inspiration for the development of noble
Shariyat, book 2 page 184 Second Edition 1988:
"The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master has other titles. He is the Godman, the
Vi-Guru, the Light Giver, protector of the poor, the king of heaven, saviour of
mankind, the scourge of evil, and the defender of the faithful. He is the real
and only power in all the universes of God. No one can harm him without his
consent, for all that is done to him is given permission by the ECK, with his
To help further my spiritual growth within this framework of eckankar, the
mahanta now goes on to say:
"As a spiritual discipline you are put back to the First Circle of initiation
and are to stand aside from all eck duties for the present."
We can show the world that this is also against what the framework of eckankar
Dialogues With The Master page 172:
First Printing 1990 "Remember this that those who demand respect and love of
others to themselves are only exercising the negative or attracting power. The
true teachings do not discipline in any way; do not set up duties or
difficulties or tasks for teaching their disciples."
This framework also tells the world, and its followers, that the teacher will
bring about any changes needed within a chela without any pain or difficulties.
Illuminated Way Letters 1966-1971 page 54 Copyright 1975 by Gail Twitchell
"It is doubtful that the teacher will sit with his chela and discuss any
character faults of the aspirant. Hardly ever will the teachers tell anyone
what is wrong with himself, but he will concentrate on the error and bring about
the change from the inner to the outer world, without pain or difficulty to the
chelas, very often without the chela having any conscious awareness of it."
Dear friend, and the world. I am fully aware of what this framework of eckankar
has done to me, I am also fully aware of what this framework has done to many
others, and this is the reason why the framework of the H.C.S. was brought
about. It was brought about to help those who have suffered the injustice of
eckankar at the hands of its mythological mahanta and to give them support and
a free voice.
We can now look to another aspect of this frameworks teachings, if not its
practice, that of calling upon the master when the chela finds themselves in any
I was now left with no other recourse to attain further guidance other than to
write to the mahanta at the physical level. As yet, nothing has been given. Now
for the eckankar apologists they can say, "Get It On The Inner", but, and this
is very very very important, how can the individual `Get It On The Inner` when
the mahanta has just told the individual that all they have received on the
inner is the misleadings of the kal? That the chela has the right to call upon
the mahanta is given in the frameworks teachings. Not only has the chela the
right to call upon the mahanta, but the mahanta is bound by his duty to answer
each and every call of this nature. Let the world see the following exhibit:
Illuminated Way Letters, 1966-1971, PAGE 130 Copyright 1975 by Gail Twitchell
"Whenever the chela experiences any difficulty with himself such as
falling into the negative trap, or even with Soul Travel, he should call upon
the Master to assist him, or conduct him as the soul traveller to the spiritual
worlds. For the Living ECK Master is bound by his mission to answer each and
every call of this nature".
Let it go on record, that the mahanta has failed in his duty, both to give the
inner protection that his framework promises to give, and that he has also
failed to assist a chela when called upon to do so. Now the world can see what
the framework of eckankar says about a master failing in his duty:
Shariyat, book 2, page 219. Second Edition 1988:
"If he falters or fails; it is possible that he may be taken out of this
position; and if he falters in his responsibility while serving as the Mahanta,
the Living ECK Master, it is possible that he must step down for another to take
Unlike the mahanta, I am prepared to let all see the contents of my journal and
come to their own understanding, and, unlike the mahanta, I am prepared to
answer any questions that others may wish to ask. The framework of the H.C.S.
has provided this facility for openness and free speech, the framework of
eckankar has provided only threats to those who voice dissension and doubt.
Shariyat, book 1, page 91. Third Printing 1972:
"To ridicule, to scorn, to speak mockingly of the word of the Mahanta, and not
to have faith in him and the cause of ECK is to bring woes on the advocator of
doubt. It brings his karmic progress to a halt, increases his incarnations in
this world, and causes him to suffer untold hardships".
Even if a chela, or chela's tries to broach a question that is not wanted by the framework of eckankar and its leader, its teachings provide a guidance for the party faithful of how to view this dissesion within the ranks.
Shariyat, book 2, pages 25-26. Second Edition 1988:
" It must be remembered that all complaints and all arguments against the ECK,
which are directed at the Mahanta, are the works of the Kal. Such assaults on
the Mahanta are those which originate from the Kal using the minds and
consciousness of those persons within its power to destroy the Mahanta and the
ECK, if at all possible. These are the works of the Kal, who uses religion,
ministers, and lay persons to bring about the downfall of the ECK, because it is
the truth. There will be those who call themselves ECK Masters and disguise
themselves under the robes of the ECK, but they are prophets with false faces
who are lying to the ECKist`s , but few if any who are true followers of the ECK
are ever deceived by these agents of the Kal".
What Harold Klemp and the eckankar organisation have chosen to ignore is that
truth, a truth that can be proven, is not an assault upon the mahanta, it is an
assault upon that which is untrue. If Harold Klemp as the mahanta and the
eckankar organisation see, and feel, that this as an assault upon them, then it
can only be because they have something to hide. Truth knows no fear, so why
does the framework of eckankar hide behind a wall of silence, instead of making
a stand upon its proclaimed truth in order to defend the truth of the sugmad and
its faithful followers?
Let those who have the eyes to see and the ears to ear reach their own verdict
from the `Facts` provided by the framework of eckankar itself , and its
application of its teachings by the mahanta. `By Their Actions Ye Shall Know
Dear friend, and the world, I rest my case.
Response to eckie_99: I Took Your Test and Got An "A" !
Well, I looked at your test questions and have the answers... !.)
Q- What is more ethically incorrect?
A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold
Q- Who is less truthful?
A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold (that was just like #1!)
Q- Who is spiritually more developed?
A- "C" Those who are not afraid to see and hear truth
Q- What is a bigger spiritual crime?
A- "C" Not to give people the opportunity to know and choose truth over lies
That wasn't so hard after all... was it!
I graded it myself and got 100% correct!
--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...>
>rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"
> "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that
> Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original links/threads for
>long post though.
> To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is still a
>self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day I [Doug
> Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online book:
> [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my
Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in the box. It was a
personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his home. It sounded like Paul
was experimenting again. This time he was trying to create an audio version of
something like Dialogues With The Master.
>Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely sound, saying something
> The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs.
like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicking the voice of Rebazar
Tarzs! The tape went on to give a discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic.
This was so long ago I can't remember much more than that, but the tape was
amazing to me, and I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it
>anything about it before. He immediately became interested, told me that it was
> So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had ever heard
news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I told Darwin that I had left
it in my apartment with all the other tapes I was sorting through, but I would
run home to get it for him. I immediately jumped up to head for my car.
>impression. He saw that I was hurrying toward my car in my desire to get the
> It was at this point that Darwin said something that left me with a deep
tape for him, and he said, "Take your time." He then paused, as if he was saying
something very important, and he added, "There is never any reason to rush."
>invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it. - [David Lane?]
> July 2001:
> "The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT my
>David show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought that?
> Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't
Kirpal makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's Fang, which in
its first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but was changed to Rebazar
Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967. [....]" - [Doug Marman?]
>part, I see the copied info as generally either common themes or insignificant
> July 2003:
> Interesting, Doug. I have mixed feeling about the "plagerism". For thos most
fillers. However, I find the quotes where he claimed to have come from Rebazar
to have been done in really poor taste... and perhaps not a great move in his
>What are your on that stuff ?
> I agree with you that plagiarism is not the real issue. I think the factthat many felt The Far Country was a transcription of an actual dialog means
this matter of plagiarism shows them a very different picture. It means the
words really came from Paul's pen, with help from other authors, and not word
for word from Rebazar Tarzs.
> As for poor taste, I think it looks a lot differently now. I can look backat some of my early writings and see strong similarities with Paul's books. He
influenced me significantly. Let's say I decided to leave ECKANKAR and start
writing for some other teacher. Let's say I took some of my old writings and
just re-worked them to fit with the new teachings. Now, somebody eventually sees
that my writings are almost word for word from some of Paul's writings. Now it
looks like I was "stealing" from ECKANKAR, and that the new teacher is just a
> It's all a matter of perspective.them enough that he covered a lot of the same material, and even used very
> I think Paul was clearly influenced by Johnson's books. He obviously liked
similar words in many cases, when he wrote The Far Country. However, he was also
writing this at the same time as he handed Kirpal Singh his first draft of The
Tiger's Fang. If Kirpal had not rejected his efforts, I believe Kirpal's
students would have looked at The Far Country far differently.
> On the other hand, I don't really know what Paul was thinking when he wrotethis book. I do like The Far Country far more than Johnson's books, so I'm
glad he wrote it. However, I do think that it is a serious negative to his
popularity in the public sector. I'm not sure Paul would mind too much about
that. - Doug.
>can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers
> (4) February 2004:
> "[...] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I guess I
words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck Master were saying
them? Yes. [....]"
>Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual account?
> March 2007:
> [...] Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book,
> Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is hetrying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
> I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By TheRiver was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, but have
taken The Far Country as something different.
> So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar work ofart, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow you were
fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it becomes a trust
issue for them.
> I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was muchmore like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing spiritual
teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
> These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So, Ialways thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he was
trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.
In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book, to leave
the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it was really
like. [...] Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write
about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the later,
wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why worry if his facts
are not exactly right?
> --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer
> >of mind to know that others did have them too. Thank you for being such a wise
> > Prometheus,
> > You have no idea how comforting your comments are to me. It gives me peace
> >rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why? The circus of
> > Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that
eckankar is mind boggling. The more I hear from experienced eckist, the harder
it is to believe that it can stand as an organization. It appears like a house
of cards. Do you think more people are becoming disenchanted with eckankar and
do you think the org is losing ground? I haveÂ read they exaggerate their
membership by counting anyone who has ever attended an eck event. Any ideas?
> > Thanks
> > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@>
> > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar
> > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.comI got out. I believe it happened because I just wasn't falling in line like a
> > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:33 PM
> > Hello Janice and All,
> > Interesting. I think I'll
> > share some comments
> > to your insights below.
> > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
> > "Prometheus,
> > Now that is very interesting.
> > I, myself, felt I suffered some kind of an attack about a year or so before
good little eckist but maybe I was robbed of energy. My experience was that I
was just before falling asleep one night and I heard a loud voice which used a
word I couldn't remember later. I know it started with a P.
> >felt a wave of nausea and weakness. This wasn't a dream but I was only half
> > Anyway, as this word was being shouted, I got a jolt of some kind and then I
awake. The voice I heard wasn't wimpy sounding klemp. It was a strong male
voice. A few nights later, I did dream that an ugly looking little troll like
figure came into my room and stood gazing at me through the metal barks on the
foot board of my bed. In my dream I told it to get out now and never come back.
> >a thief and a con artist. The experience was weird and the dreams were even more
> > Then I started having dreams that portrayed the eck master rebazar as being
so. While an early eckist, I guess rebazar was my favorite character. He seemed
the most spiritual at the time. I found it very confusing to have these dreams.
> >relationship with a high initiate. I started asking the questions that got me
> > I began to realize how stale my life had become. I was in a long term
yelled at by the area resa. I had read nothing but eck teachings since becoming
an eckist. I thought while an ekist there was true beauty in the teachings."
> >attempts to break a person down. I walked away and I started reading all the
> > ME (Prometheus): I know that
> > many of us have had similar
> > experiences of being attacked
> > by negative entities and having
> > to defend ourselves. In this case
> > your RESA was, also, one of these
> > negative beings. Too bad you
> > couldn't protect yourself from
> > them, but it's deceptive when
> > one has placed trust in a RESA
> > by assuming they are always
> > positive and always on your side.
> > They are as closed minded and
> > defensive as is any religionist
> > when protecting their dogma
> > from too much scrutiny.
> > "And so I began to see eckankar with all its manipulation and how it
things I would not read as a<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>