Re: Eckanker: 12/2005 H.I. Letter #3- Another Look via the Shariyat
- Hi Mish,
I re-read HK's account of this Spiritual Exercise of Eve's where she
was in "full consciousness at a Golden Wisdom Temple" with him. I
wonder why Klemp had to point out that it was "Rami Nuri" that
greeted them since she was in "full consciousness?" Does
Klemp's "full consciousness" comment mean that Eve is also an Eck
Aren't there supposed to be 12 Shariyats! If this was the "third
section" then this experience took place on the Causal Plane...
right?! But wait! The Eckankar Lexicon on page 172 has Rami Nuri
(the letter M appears on his forehead) guarding the Shariyat One on
the physical plane and on Venus!
So, why couldn't Eve read this Shariyat? I guess Eckists are
expected to fill in the blanks with their imaginations and Not look
at details. Klemp should have started the story with, Once upon a
time! Rami Nuri does Not guard the "third section" of the Shariyat
according to the Eckankar LexiCon. Details, details! Then again,
Klemp can change anything and anyone around as he sees fit... right!
He's got the power! And Eckists need to trust him because they would
have nothing otherwise. Except, they are still Soul and have their
own power as their own Mahanta or Whatever. Rami Nuri was actually
Eve's Higher Self! Eckists don't need the mahanta middle man to come
between them and GOD/SUGMAD. Really! This is why there are so many
contradictions. Eckankar is made-up, distorted, and borrowed to give
the top few incomes and to give its followers hope (and
distractions) as do other religions. Except, with Eckankar, paid
membership is mandatory! LOL!
I don't believe that Klemp will do an update or corrections of
Twitchell's Shariyats. Klemp, IMO, does not intend to complete
Volume III of the Shariyat either. It probably is just too difficult
for him to do so. I mean he can't copy it from other religious
sources for fear of being found out. I don't think he is getting
that Inner Guidance to write it either, or he would--that's my
From "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," Klemp tells this story of a
chela's dream concerning (pages 168-169) "the third section of the
"As she did her spiritual exercises one day, Eve found herself with
the Mahanta and in full consciousness at a Golden Wisdom Temple.
She'd risen to the soft white cloud with the Mahanta as in the past.
However, this time there was a surprise of sorts for they'd arrived
at a kind of mosque with a golden roof. An ECK Master with a beard
greeted them at the door. (It was Rami Nuri) . . . . The party of
three--the Mahanta, Eve, and Rami Nuri--made their way down a long
hall, with Rami Nuri in the lead. They continued along a main
corridor until an aisle branched off to the left. And there it was,
the third section of the holy Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad. The holy wisdom of
God! Eve had expected to find sacred text greet her eyes, but it
intrigued her to find not a single visible word in the whole volume.
Not one word. But there was something: a beautiful, strong light
surged from its pages, taking her breath away. And that was all Eve
could remember of this remarkable experience."
So, the third volume of the holy Shariyat contains no words at all;
there's just light emitting from its pages. How convenient for
Well, for those eckists who want to believe in these teachings, this
little story, so much like the fairy tale of the king with no
clothes, will answer the question of why there is no written
Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, volume III. It, then, becomes very easy for
these steadfast believers to imagine volume III's existence as
nothing more than light shining from blank pages. After all, Harold
supports this chela's dream when he does not deny its validity. It
seems that anyone can fill in the blank pages by using their own
vivid imaginations! Therefore, if you can write your own Shariyat,
why not be your own mahanta! : )
- --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"
> Eve had expected to find sacred text greet her eyes, but itvolume. Not one word. But there was something: a beautiful, strong
> intrigued her to find not a single visible word in the whole
light surged from its pages, taking her breath away. And that was all
Eve could remember of this remarkable experience."
>Actually Mish, I saw this in a movie but can't recall the name of it
> So, the third volume of the holy Shariyat contains no words at all;
> there's just light emitting from its pages. How convenient for
> Harold! LOL!
right now. Came out about 10 or more years ago. My children and I
watched it together. I'm pretty sure it was a Children's type movie
on *lessons*. I'll have to ask them if they recall the name when they
get home from school. And it wasn't the fairy tale of the king with
no clothes.... Gosh I hate those brain farts!
> After all, HaroldLOL, I was saying this during the last several years of my
> supports this chela's dream when he does not deny its validity. It
> seems that anyone can fill in the blank pages by using their own
> vivid imaginations! Therefore, if you can write your own Shariyat,
> why not be your own mahanta! : )
membership. At the last HI retreats I attended, I questioned other
HI's during a round table "why can't we write our own discourses when
the eckankrap ones dry up..." and shared that I HAD started doing
Yes, eventually we do come to realise we are our own Mahanta /
Master/ etc. Sadly Harold will never encourage this in his fake
- Hello All,
Quarterly H.I. Letter articles are current instructions
for H.I.s. This one contains the instructions to improve
communication within the ECK community. However,
Klemp never follows his own advice. Twitchell,
too, uses 'BUT' often in the Shariyat... Klemp does, as
well, in his current books.
However, what's incredible is that Klemp continues
to use "BUT" in his Members Only articles still today!
Klemp states that using 'BUT' is "limiting" and shows
you've stopped "listening" and produces a constant
stream of "contradictions."
What a hypocrite! Or, is Klemp just oblivious! Either way it
shows that he is Not a "Master" of anything, except, deceit
and trickery (an agent of Kal), and is Unconscious of
even his own (Mental Plane) words. How can HK, therefore,
be higher in consciousness than a 3rd Initiate when he hasn't
mastered the 4th Plane?!
> This is where Klemp talks about Not using "Ifs" "Ands" and "Buts"e, for example, says to a student, 'Study hard if
> within the Eck community and forgets to follow his own advice in:
> the Letter of Light, The Mystic World, in this H.I. Letter or when
> addressing Eckists in "Those Wonderful Eck Masters (pg.211)!" Klemp
> is just all talk and is mentioning this quote from Kant to sound
> well read and intelligent, like G.W. Bush, who is Klemp's hero and
> fellow deceiver. The bigger question is why are these words okay for
> public use and Not for Eckists (other than Klemp)? LOL!
> [HK] "Next, I need to translate those images into today's language.
> That's why much of my writing is simple. It leaves less room for
> misinterpreting and makes translating into other languages easier."
> [Me] The Shariyats Do Not use "simple" language and they are
> the "Holy Books" of Eckankar and are offered to the foreign public.
> Is Klemp thinking about simplifying them? It is not so much the
> language that HK uses as to the content. Klemp must be reading these
> posts for him to be so defensive about this and needing to explain
> [HK] "I take care to translate the images from the ECK to human
> language as accurately as possible. They flow through directly in a
> [Me] How does something "flow" in a "burst?" It would help if Klemp
> (the Mahanta) would use the correct choice of words! Perhaps he
> should have said that, They "come" through directly in a burst or
> that They "appear" or "manifest" directly in a burst. These sound
> better, make more sense, and are more accurate!
> [HK] "Many are sharing their ideas from the mental arena, and it
> uplifts people. I look at the ideas and thoughts of philosophers."
> [Me] Really! I though that all of these past ideas and thoughts were
> below the consciousness of the current Eck teachings! If the
> consciousness of Twitchell is lower that today's Mahanta
> Consciousness what about the past thoughts and ideas of non-Masters
> or even non-Living (in a physical body) Eck Masters?! What about the
> consciousness of the Shariyats?
> [HK] "One thing that strikes me about Immanuel Kant was something he
> said that acts out an appreciation for life, which shows gratitude
> in expression. He said, no ifs, ands, or buts. By that he meant.
> make your statements clean and clear."
> [Me] The B.S. meter is starting to rise higher! Question: Why does
> Klemp view Kant's opinions so highly? I don't! Besides, where's the
> gratitude by Not using these words Only to Eckists? Or at all? Weird
> [HK] "Suppose on
> you want to make your degree.' Kant says, forget the stuff at thePrometheus
> end. Say just, 'Study hard.'
> [Me] I think that the "if" is just giving emphasis and focus to the
> point being made... Study hard "if" you want that degree. The "if"
> helps to bring ones attention back to the overall goal. Otherwise
> the "study hard" just doesn't have the same impact. Where's Kant
> when you need him? Actually, some people don't even have to "Study
> hard." Both comments are simply Kant's opinions. Kant's comments
> don't have any more validity than yours or mine! SOUL=SOUL... right?!
> Wake up little Harry! Hello! By the way, you Eckies maight want to
> just say, Blessings! Instead of the longer version. LOL!
> [HK] "When someone says BUT, its a nail in the coffin of invention.
> A constant stream of CONTRADICTIONS shuts off creativity and a gift
> that may be offered. And WHEN SOMEONE SAYS BUT, HE'S STOPPED
> LISTENING. So be aware when using IF. And especially when using BUT,
> because IT'S LIMITING. Move straight ahead. It throws a condition
> under your feet that is a trip wire." [My caps]
> [Me] Trip wire? Nice military jargon Klemp! Is this keeping it
> simple and helping to translate your words into other languages? LOL!
> Here are HK's quotes to chelas in TWEM pg.211: "BUT IF he chooses to
> hang on to shopworn karmic debts due to, say, AN INABILITY TO
> CONTROL SOME MENTAL PASSION or HABIT LIKE ANGER then HIS SPIRITUAL
> MOMENTUM STOPS." So, Klemp is using "contradictions" himself by
> using "But if!" Perhaps this is because "an inability to control
> some mental passion" like jumping off a bridge! LOL! Here's more
> from TWEM page 211 (thanks Jackie!): "BUT such an attitude changes
> nothing. The individual is a LOSER and will continue to be a LOSER
> until he adopts the practices of a WINNER." And, don't ever forget
> Klemp's angry and negative comments to that TEMPORARY POSTAL CLERK
> in the 09/2003 H.I. Letter! Klemp always said that he wasn't much of
> a listener! Yet, he points out that ESAs should be! Another
> [HK] "This is pretty much for ourselves, because in dealing with
> others, you may need to use if, and, or but."
> [Me] So, Eckists should Not use "if" in order to give emphasis to a
> topic with one another, however, it's okay to use "if" with the
> public! And, Eckists should Not use "but" with one another because
> Klemp says that it is used with "contradictions" and "shuts off
> creativity and a gift that may be offered." However, "but" is okay
> for public use!
> [HK] "And is better because it doesn't limit and is a building
> [Me] So why mention "and" in the first place? Oh, I know! Kant
> mentioned "and," thus, HK would have to leave this out of
> his "philosophical" quote otherwise. Not too clever!
> [HK] Yet, IF someone's trying to make plans for you, then you may
> need to say, 'But I don't want to.' They have no right to make your
> plans." [My caps]
> [Me] Notice the "IF" that Klemp just used! For Pete's sake (not you
> Peter! LOL!) Klemp can't even get through his own article before
> contradicting himself. I guess that nothing applies to him as it
> does to everyone else. HK must be above the law! Not really! This
> just goes to show how much of a control freak he really is, and, how
> his words or motives can't be trusted <sigh>
> Klemp now contradicts himself again when he says "YOU MAY NEED TO
> SAY, 'BUT I DON'T WANT TO.' Why not just say, I DON'T WANT TO! Just
> be direct like Kant is saying! Klemp is losing what few marbles he
> has left! Like I said before- G.W. and HK have a lot in common!