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

6194Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    May 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      What stood out to me most from the examples you listed was Doug
      Marman's use of the word "facts".

      In the examples I gave - especially when Doug addressed my questions
      about Rebazar Tarzs on a.r.e. - it seemed to me that in some respects
      "facts" were somehow "secondary" to spiritual experience.

      I thoiught about the a.r.e. thread last night trying to fathom what
      Doug was saying about Paul's stories and things said (some of them) not
      based on facts. And frankly, it still didn't jive with me. Off hand I
      can remember at least two places where Paul Twitchell illustrated that
      Rebazar Tarzs "told him" what to write. In one place (I believe)
      Rebazar Tarzs comes to Paul's room, wakes him up, tells him to take up
      the pencil and write. (I'm referring to Dialogues With The Master and
      The Far Country.) So how can Doug suggest those were Paul's words based
      on a spiritual experience?
      Paul wrote (in so many words) that Rebazar Tarzs came and materialized
      in his room, and in one instance (I believe) the mattress sank from the
      weight of R.T. sitting on it.

      It would be nice if everybody didn't go away, all those Eckists on the
      newsgroups, and if the string of dialogues could continue today. I say
      this because there is a lot more information and examples available to
      share where many of "Paul's words" read as plagiarized from various
      books by other authors - none of them by the name of Rebazar Tarzs, or
      other Eck masters.

      ***

      "They" didn't succeed at booting me from a.r.e., and I didn't "move on"
      as once suggested. To the contrary I continued to research the FACTS -
      whether anybody likeed it or not - and have reams of examples (which
      can be illustrated and verified by REAL evidence and FACTS) about many
      of the things people were chewing on and debating over for years before
      I arrived. Some of the examples I (and others) have since found are
      those that not even David Lane was aware of (I'm talking about examples
      of Paul's writings compared with other authors) and I think probably
      that Doug Marman was unaware of.

      So new information has come in since the D.L. / D.M. debates, etc. New
      FACTS are now known. How facts can be important in one instance and
      something else in another ... I am not sure what Doug was talking
      about.

      I recall from the newspapers that sometimes when something happens that
      embarrasses the government and people want to know who is responsible -
      such as torture of prisoners, etc. - those higher up in the ladder
      have responded with things like: The first time I heard about it was
      from the news / newspaper. Iow, people claim ignorance and that they
      didn't know about something until it became public via the news. Well,
      to admit otherwise - and that they did know about it (and for a long
      time) - would be damning to them and public opinion would have them on
      a spike!

      Now I recall that (for some reason) Harold Klemp doesn't use the
      Internet. I'm sure he reads the newspapers and watches the news, but
      how much about the trove of FACTS regarding Paul's writings compared
      with other authors - INCLUDING REBAZAR TARZS - is in the newspapers, or
      on the evening news? (Maybe it should be?) Much of the new information
      and research has been put on the Internet. That's where it is (also in
      some books). And even there, we've probably all seen how apologists can
      argue against certain information being true, try to marginalize people
      and their research, even to the extent of suggesting (in so many words)
      that facts don't matter. Or, it's not about facts.

      Well, I've seen where it looks like people want to have it both ways.
      Facts matter. Facts don't matter. As far as research goes, and besides
      the stories of "spiritual experiences" that people send in, When was
      the last time the Eckankar website posted something about people doing
      real research into the stories told by Paul Twitchell? (Not to mention
      "research" about the stories sent in by Eckists today?) It was 1984
      when Harold came out with all that stuff about Paul Twitchell and when
      Harold did research. I wonder if they continue to research, or if (for
      some reason) it stopped a long time ago?

      Oh yeah, I remember it now.

      "[....] A few years after Harold became the Master [1984?], he began
      researching and going through Paul's old files. That was after Darwin
      turned Paul's library over to Harold. It certainly would be true to say
      that Harold saw a side of Paul he had not seen before, as did I [Doug
      Marman] when Harold gave me permission to look through the records.
      Paul's files gave some interesting insights into Paul's past, which
      Paul never spoke about. So Harold began to make a more thorough study.
         
      "About this same time, Harold began hearing from a number of ECKists
      about passages in other books that sounded similar to Paul's, and
      further stories about how Paul had studied with Kirpal Singh and worked
      for L. Ron Hubbard, which had circulated around since the early days.
      So, with Paul's files handy, Harold started digging. [....] A few
      months later, after researching Paul's files more thoroughly, Harold
      began giving a series of talks and writing a series of articles to
      share the information he found. Although Harold never tried to force
      anyone to change their perceptions of Paul, he was clearly working to
      unfreeze the ideas that had developed over time so that we could all
      see Paul from a fresh viewpoint. [....]"

      [Based on: Doug Marman: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]

      "[...] Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
      Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
      1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on Sudar
      Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named Sundar
      Singh, who is not the same person at all.
      "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
      whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
      all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
      more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
      initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves.
      "Some people wonder if Rebazar Tarzs really exists. They ask if Paul
      just borrowed a name from the Far East and made him up. Yet people
      report having met the ECK Masters even before they ever heard of
      Eckankar. The ECK Masters are real."

      [Based on: Article (Looking at the Past for Spiritual Lessons) by
      Harold Klemp - see link]

      http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training

      They got reports? Hmm ... then maybe I should send in a report? :)

      I could give other examples where it looks like Eckankar is interested
      in stories from other people, including what people found by research.
      Apparently though, the LEM. isn't going to simply look at the Eck-Vidya
      and share answers to all of the questions people have. At the same time
      though, it looks like people pick and choose from all the information
      only what "THEY WANT" the facts to be and put the rest under the rug.

      If one disregards the reported facts written by Paul Twitchell
      concerning his meetings, encounters, and relationships with Eck Masters
      then where does it leave you? In Never Never Land with Peter Pan and
      Tinker Bell, etc.? (Hey look! He's playing a flute!)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverland

      Are "spiritual experiences", the "stories" (and the stories that people
      send in) somehow more REAL than factual accounts which can be
      researched and verified? Or, Are "spiritual experiences" sometimes used
      as a label for anything a person wants to be true? Iow, does the land
      of make believe trump the actual facts? This is what it comes down to,
      IMO.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
      To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
      <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sat, May 5, 2012 10:57 pm
      Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar
      (Revisited)

       
      BTW- 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 board.

      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
      understanding.

      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

      Freeman

      Joey Ward
      02/09/2004
      Top

      Thanks Doug

      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 the
      pants.

      Thanks Doug,
      Joey Ward

      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
      02/08/2004
      Top

      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.

      Doug Marman
      02/08/2004
      Top

      A Few Responses

      I've received a number of comments to my last post.

      I will respond to some of the questions and comments.

      To Degar:

      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?

      Yes.

      5. Who do you Trust to tell the truth about Spiritual truths? Pick
      one only. [Names omitted]

      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.

      To Journey:

      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 the mark.

      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.

      To DD:

      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 others.

      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?

      To Nacal:

      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 mahanta?
      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 own children?
      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 at all.

      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 not?

      "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 Rama."

      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 birthdate.

      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 then?

      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 really know?

      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 their own.

      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 interested.

      Doug.

      Degar
      02/08/2004
      Top

      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 Truth."

      NO RELIGION can hold GOD to a given doctrine! Even the doctrine of
      Light and Sound…..

      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.

      Wake up!

      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.

      Degar *

      Kermit
      02/08/2004
      Top

      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 restrictive guidelines.

      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.

      Kermit

      Journey
      02/07/2004
      Top

      Reply to GPk: On Unloving Attitudes

      Dear GPk,

      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 your attacks.

      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 Truth Seeker.

      Best regards and good reading,
      Journey

      Willy
      02/07/2004
      Top

      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
      own.

      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 others.)

      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.

      FS
      02/07/2004
      Top

      Response to Eckie_99: The Real Impact of Eckankar Mythology and The
      Role of HCS

      Dear eckie_99

      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.

      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 eck.

      "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 character".

      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 consent".

      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 teaches:

      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 Gross:
      "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 difficulty:

      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 Gross: "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 his place".

      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 Them`

      Dear friend, and the world, I rest my case.

      Usually Skeptical
      02/07/2004
      Top

      Response to eckie_99: I Took Your Test and Got An "A" !

      Dear ekie,

      Well, I looked at your test questions and have the answers... !.)

      1.)
      Q- What is more ethically incorrect?
      A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold

      2.)
      Q- Who is less truthful?
      A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold (that was just like #1!)

      3.)
      Q- Who is spiritually more developed?
      A- "C" Those who are not afraid to see and hear truth

      4.)
      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!

      Usually Skeptical

      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18"
      <etznab@...> wrote:
      >
      > "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman
      admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"
      >
      > Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original
      links/threads for complete context.)
      >
      > To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is
      still a long post though.
      >
      > (1)
      >
      > Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online
      book:
      >
      > [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my
      self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day
      I [Doug 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.
      >
      > The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by
      Rebazar Tarzs. Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely
      sound, saying something 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 today.
      >
      > So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had
      ever heard anything about it before. He immediately became interested,
      told me that it was 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 ho<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic