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

Re: PT: Rebazar the Real LEM & SAT NAM the I...

Expand Messages
  • zoey_true
    ... operate. i guess that s what i was most curious about, is this a cult-wide thing now, the exit interview? my friend has promised to give me all the
    Message 1 of 51 , Apr 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- oh, it was a polite request, kent. you know how those people
      operate. i guess that's what i was most curious about, is this a
      cult-wide thing now, the exit interview? my friend has promised to
      give me all the details. I'm wanting to know if the resa uses the
      opportunity to try and pull my friend back in, or will he simply ask
      questions which might serve some future recruiting/retaining purpose
      for other initiates. and you're right; the truth arrow will not
      likely pierce the resa's eck armor.

      my friend does plan to tell the resa one thing that any fool can
      understrand, even an eck fool. and it is this: even if we assume
      that eckankar serves some positive or uplifting or educational or
      developmental purpose in an individual's life, it is a room (a
      perceptual world) just like any other 'room'. as such, one can
      outgrow it just as one outgrows any other cocoon. time to move it
      down the line. zoey

      ---------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > Hi Zoey,
      >
      > In Tucson an eck spiritual aid was asked, many years ago, to do
      > several sessions with various eckists who had found out about the
      > David Lane material and had questions. She became so exposed to the
      > Lane material she freaked out, and soon left eckankar. But these
      days
      > resas still in eckankar probably are a bit more inoculated against
      > the truth, and may not be as affected. I'd guess this "interview"
      is
      > another eckankar program that is instituted cult-wide. This has
      > Klemp's m.o. written all over it. Did the resa make the interview a
      > request, or was it stated to be a requirement (as if!)?
      >
      > In any case, how completely cultic! Some people might not be strong
      > enough upon first leaving to deal with the manipulative eckankar
      spin
      > about losing spiritual growth, threats about more karma, more
      > incarnations, etc. This cult is really so much more cultic than
      some
      > people realize.
      >
      > When I quit I didn't bother telling the org. Why give them such
      > control? But I would be curious if I were your friend, and would go
      > to the interview with copies of Lane's or Johnson's books to leave
      in
      > the resa's lap. One can down load Lanes material from his site.
      >
      > I would wager the resa will view this as a "spiritual aid session"
      in
      > disguise. Ask your friend if a hu chant is suggested during part of
      > the interview. The format of the interview would be useful to post
      > here.
      >
      > Kent
      >
      >
      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger
      > <zoey_true@> wrote:
      > >
      > > oh, mish, im sure the resa will just do the dance of denial. we
      > all know that. but, who knows, the truth has a way of worming its
      > way in. even if it takes years, the truth has a way of working
      away,
      > little at a time, like one of those flowers that grows up through
      > concrete.
      > >
      > > zoey...
      > >
      > > mishmisha9 <mishmisha9@> wrote:
      > > Zoey,
      > >
      > > That will be quite a gift for the RESA! Might be exactly
      > > the way to go! : )
      > >
      > > Mish
      > >
      > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Zoey Salinger
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > on the other hand: my friend used a great deal of dignity and
      > discretion when he left the
      > > cult. he meditated the matter in his own heart, and made the
      > decision to leave. he wrote
      > > an honest, though brief and neutral, letter to HQ. he stated that
      > he had made a personal
      > > decision to disassociate from eckankar. he left it at that.
      > > >
      > > > NOW...the resa has opened the door to hear whatever my friend
      has
      > to say. he has
      > > invited in the truth, and my friend will give it to him.
      > > >
      > > > zoey...
      > > >
      > > > mishmisha9 wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi, Zoey and All!
      > > >
      > > > I can understand the curiosity factor! : ) But the thing about
      > > > participating in the exit interview would be allowing a final
      > > > cult control. Being willing to answer some questions directly
      > > > to the cult org would be like validating its existence as being
      > > > one of worth. Giving up one's time to do so is like a donation!
      > LOL!
      > > >
      > > > However, glad to hear another person is dropping out. One needs
      > > > to do what one feels is necessary--so if your friend does want
      to
      > > > do the curious thing, it's okay really! I've just stated how I
      > view
      > > > such a thing. I quit in 2003, but recently received an inquiry
      and
      > > > a how to renew my membership. Why in the world would eckankar
      > > > want me???? : ) Sweet!
      > > >
      > > > Mish
      > > >
      > > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Zoey
      Salinger
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > that is my take, ewickings. he knows he isn't obligated, but
      > the curiosity factor is
      > > huge.
      > > > he is wanting to know what the resa is up to. but i think
      you're
      > right. i think the resa is
      > > > collecting info to help HQ's marketing strategy. at any rate,
      if
      > i find out more, i will send
      > > a
      > > > further message.
      > > > >
      > > > > zoey
      > > > >
      > > > > ewickings wrote:
      > > > > v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) } v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url
      > (#default#vml) }
      > > > FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 ;
      > > > > LOL That exit interview is BS, have your friend use it to
      wipe
      > his butt and say, "Here is
      > > > your exit interview!" Unless he has anything that belongs to
      the
      > Satsang Society, he isn't
      > > > obligated to do a damn thing! This is a business don't you see?
      > They just want in put on
      > > > what needs to be done better.
      > > > >
      > > > > GET A CLUE KLUMP, TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LIES!
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > -------Original Message-------
      > > > >
      > > > > From: Zoey Salinger
      > > > > Date: 4/2/2007 11:50:49 AM
      > > > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: PT: Rebazar the
      > Real LEM & SAT NAM
      > > > the I...
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > I have a question. A friend of mine is finally leaving eckle.
      > He did not make a big
      > > > scene of it, but simply submitted a letter to HQ and his local
      > resa. At any rate, the local
      > > > resa has now called him and asked my friend to do an "exit
      > interview". what the heck is
      > > > that? is this something new?
      > > > >
      > > > > zoey...
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ---------------------------------
      > > > > Never miss an email again!
      > > > > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check
      > it out.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ---------------------------------
      > > > The fish are biting.
      > > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ---------------------------------
      > > Need Mail bonding?
      > > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers
      users.
      > >
      >
    • prometheus_973
      Etznab, At times you sound like Doug Marman. Especially when you place the blame of being misunderstood back upon the reader. You also [snip] away too much
      Message 51 of 51 , Apr 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Etznab,
        At times you sound like Doug Marman. Especially
        when you place the blame of being misunderstood
        back upon the reader. You also [snip] away too much
        information from the original post so that the reader
        has no idea of what it is you're talking about, or of
        the original information (facts) presented or POV.
        You, therefore, jump around here and there (willy
        nilly) while avoiding the real issue or topic of discussion.

        Rebazar was just one fictional character of Twitchell's
        out of many! The information supplied by Klemp on
        ECKANKAR.org of Twitchell meeting Rebazar in 1951
        on a "SECOND" trip to India, and in 1935 meeting Sudar
        Singh on his "FIRST" trip to India is all a lie. Klemp points
        out that at age 27 (1935) Paul had never been out of the
        country and was 'exaggerating' and 'twisting facts' to
        get into WHO'S WHO in KENTUCKY (PT born in 1908).

        Remember, too, that Twitch claims Sudar handed him
        over to RT for initiation! Of course, none of this is true!

        Therefore, the "apparent" or supposed dates that
        Twitchell first created the fictional character he
        named Rebazar Tarzs is just a wild ass guess on
        your part and is insignificant compared to Klemp's
        ignorance, as a Mahanta, and intentional cover-up!

        The 1935 at age 27 details of the "FACTS" as to when
        these two events were supposedly happening is the
        most significant information to look at rather than
        the distractions of "apparent" events and dates
        that you seem to be constantly focused upon. The
        ECKANKAR timeline of imaginary/fictional characters
        (ECK Masters) and other events when mixed with real
        people and real events only leads to confusion that
        can never be resolved. This is the world of ECKANKAR!

        Therefore, ECKANKAR mixes fact with fiction to create
        an imaginary "Highly Evolved" Golden Pathway via
        the use of other works from other writers and from
        other lesser known religions such as Radhasoami and
        Ruhani Satsang that also use living Masters and Higher
        Planes and Grand Divisions, Hierarchies, degrees of
        Karma, the Passions of the Mind etc., etc.

        The main purpose of this site is to point out the flaws
        and deceptions within the ECKANKAR teachings and to
        share our ECKANKAR cult experiences.

        Prometheus



        etznab@... wrote:
        >
        > In a message dated 4/4/07 3:54:24 PM Central Daylight Time, etznab@...
        > writes:
        >
        >
        > > "Dialogues With The Master" was written around 1956? About a year after
        > > initiation by Kirpal Singh? Kirpal Singh who (also in 1957?) took Paul
        > > through
        > > the several invisible worlds?
        > >
        > > "[....] Paul also wrote in his article 'The God Eaters,' that appeared in
        > > the Psychic Observer, November 1964:
        > >
        > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when he took me
        > > through the several invisible worlds in 1957. The story of this trip has been
        > > recorded in
        > > my book "The Tiger's Fang."
        > >
        > > Apparently, Paul Twitchell was dialoging with more than Rebazar Tarzs -
        > > (his name first mentioned in 1964?) in the later 1950s.
        > >
        > > According to other sources, Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951.
        > >
        > > Did he also meet Swami Premananda in 1951? I'm not sure.
        > >
        > > At any rate, if only for clarification, Dialogues With The Master may
        > > have
        > > begun long before 1968 or 1970.
        > >
        > > Etznab
        > >
        >
        > This post was in response to one by Prometheus that mentioned
        > the book Dialogues With The Master. I started my response giving
        > what has been said about when that book was written. It was in the
        > first paragraph of my post where every sentence was followed by a
        > question mark. I went on to comment about the 1950's illustrating
        > that Paul Twitchell and Kirpal Singh were in communication at that
        > time. Remember, this post (although it may not have been evident,
        > and probably wasn't) was commenting about the book Diologues
        > With The Master.
        >
        > In that post I wrote:
        >
        > "Apparently, Paul Twitchell was dialoging with more than Rebazar
        > Tarzs - (his name first mentioned in 1964?) in the later 1950s"
        >
        > Oh Henny Penny! The sky is falling!
        >
        > I should be damned for using that word "apparently"? Here I am
        > spinning something? (I'm not sure what anybody thinks, so I use
        > question marks).
        >
        > Automatically people assume I am stating as fact in this post
        > that Paul Twitchell was dialoging with Rebazar Tarzs? But I don't
        > know that as fact. Not as actual credible historical fact that I can
        > prove to anyone. And if you have followed the history of my posts
        > over the past few years you will find that this "character" (which
        > I have called him more than once) was one of my main issues!
        > And I mentioned (in so many words) that it would please me to
        > know for sure the context of Rebazar Tarzs, if he was historical
        > in the sense of having a physical body (by that name) to match,
        > or whether he was a myth.
        >
        > My final paragraph in that post (see above for the whole thing)
        > read:
        >
        > "At any rate, if only for clarification, Dialogues With The Master
        > may have begun long before 1968 or 1970."
        >
        > Is there a problem here? Earlier in the post I tried to give some
        > history about when it was written. Is it that people on E.S.A. do
        > not believe it was written in the 1950s? That it was not started at
        > that time?
        >
        > Where is the problem with this post? Where is the spin? I do
        > not see it. IMO, this is someone (myself) commenting about a
        > book called Dialogues With The Master and pointing out what
        > has been said, written (what has appeared for God's sake) that
        > I have seen.
        >
        > How else does a person comment about something fairly
        > except by giving what has been said and then giving their
        > own opinion as well?
        >
        > Oh, I get it. It was this sentence:
        >
        > "According to other sources, Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951."
        >
        > Dear heavens! I should punish myself for giving this information?
        >
        > I was illustrating what I had seen about the subject, and providing
        > it for anyone reading the post that wasn't familiar with Eckankar.
        > The 1951 date and the story about Paul meeting Rebazar in that
        > year appears on the official Eckankar Web site:
        >
        > "[....] He said he had come across the teachings through Sudar Singh
        > in a general way as early as 1935, then studied them in depth with
        > Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951. [....]"
        >
        > He said:
        >
        > "[....] My sole purpose was to find the elusive Tibetan lama,
        > known as Rebazar Tarzs, of whom I had heard much from
        > the late Sudar Singh at Allahabad. [....] It was a hot summer
        > afternoon in 1951. [....]" (then he goes on to tell the story)
        >
        > [Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1, Paul
        > Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross, p. 32]
        >
        > Can I prove that this was the case? No! What I could, perhaps,
        > prove is that Kirpal Singh was a real person, or that Paul Twitchell
        > knew of Swami Premananda in 1951:
        >
        > "In 1950, Paul Twitchell and his wife, Camille Ballowe, joined the
        > Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism in Washington, D.C."
        > [Based on: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 2]  
        >
        >    "Today, in Eckankar's extensive literature, there is no mention
        > whatsoever of Swami Premananda or Kirpal Singh. Most Eckists
        > have never even heard of either of these two gurus. The reason why
        > is because from 1964 to 1971, in a slow but finally accelerated
        > process, Twitchell had both names, which appeared throughout his
        > original writings, The Tiger's Fang, The Flute of God, and other
        > assorted articles, edited out. He replaced the names of his actual
        > teachers, Swami Premananda and Kirpal Singh, with the names
        > "Sudar Singh" and "Rebazar Tarzs." And, although Twitchell spent
        > a total of eight years studying under Kirpal Singh, he denied in 1971
        > that he was ever initiated by him.
        >
        > [Based on: http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html%5d
        >
        > (That church Paul Joined in 1950 was led by Swami Premananda)
        >
        > So I have given what I have seen - knowing that some of it may or
        > may not be entirely true. And I have to do it this way in order to be
        > fair historically because I don't know for sure (I can't prove) what was
        > actually the case. Sure I could guess and give my opinion, but I have
        > tried to steer clear of doing that as much as possible unless I am ab-
        > solutely certain.
        >
        > In most of the history that I have compiled and illustrated on time-
        > lines, I give it as it appears because that is all I can do. On those
        > timelines my own person commentary is kept to a bare minimum.
        >
        > God forbid that a person should try to comment about Eckankar
        > history.
        >
        > Etznab
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > **************************************
        > See what's free at http://www.aol.com
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.