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

Re: Question... on Self-Mastery

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hello Non-ekster, Mish and All, IMO-The big M or little m use of Master/ master is just semantics. No one person or thing, except, ALL THAT IS (or
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Non-ekster, Mish and All,
      IMO-The big "M" or little "m" use of "Master/
      master" is just semantics. No one person or
      thing, except, ALL THAT IS (or Whatever) is
      Infallible (perfect)! I don't have the stress
      of trying to be "perfect" and free of "sin"
      because I don't buy into religious dogma.

      This is my "Truth" regardless of what ECKists,
      or anyone else, thinks or says about their
      religion and religious leader. Maybe the big
      "M" in "Master" has more to do with a group's
      impressions/illusions of their Master/Leader
      whereas the little "m" in "master" is one's Self
      (the individual). But there's, also, the little "s"
      of self (ego) and the big "S" of Self (Soul).
      I can see myself as both master/Master
      (self/Soul) of my own private domain/illusion.
      But, isn't this too part of the greater Whole?
      I just have to choose what it is I want to create
      for myself versus what it is I want to see (Truth).
      Cause and effect when dealing with private and
      universal illusion can be one and the same.

      This is where private and world illusion (Maya)
      comes into play everyday and with everyone. I
      can attempt to see and operate from a Soul level,
      but the imperfections of self are always there as
      a testing vehicle for life's lessons to be demonstrated
      and assimilated for spiritual growth. This is living
      a Truer Reality.

      A monk (or recluse like Klemp) has the luxury to
      relax, write, and contemplate more than a householder
      (a regular working man/woman who operate in
      the Field of Action). He's a fake, a pseudo-master
      and is even more delusional than those who follow
      him. HK avoids the outer and escapes to a facade
      of himself because it's easier to "talk the talk" and
      adopt and live the lie Twitchell created ($). This lie
      is reenforced by chela's impressions, desires and
      beliefs. The householder lives the ups and downs
      of all aspects of life and is challenged by "walking
      the walk." The householder, also, has their relationship
      with the "inner" via dreams and contemplation as well.
      It's much easier for Klemp to talk "as if" he is
      enlightened with "Higher Consciousness" without
      demonstrating it. HK can't even demonstrate it
      through the action of writing on the same level,
      let alone better, as Non-ECKists of the past like
      Rumi or Mark Twain! Look at how Klemp deals
      with old white-haired women in restrooms at
      the Prairie Eden shopping mall. Restrooms Are Unisex!

      This is where the religious dogma of scripture
      comes into play. Let's face it, it's easy for Klemp
      to "talk the talk" when ECKists have bought
      into the illusion of the dogma by placing him
      and his "Mahanta Consciousness" upon a pedestal,
      like a Pope! At the same time ECKists have reduced
      their own spiritual value to that of an initiation
      number on a membership card!

      Really, though, when one sees through the illusion
      surrounding a "Master" like Klemp it becomes a lot
      less stressful to live the "spiritual life." Even those
      who are more authentic examples of "perfection" are
      merely teachers for us. And, sometimes the lesson
      is, for us, Not to be like them... be like You!

      Isn't it interesting that most ECKists were non-
      conformists before joining ECKANKAR and then
      had to conform (surrender) to the EK dogma in
      order to "fit-in" and advance with initiations & titles.
      What happened to their uniqueness and individuality
      as rebels? Ah! Since the EK teachings are seen as
      weird (embarrassing too), or controversial and are
      unorthodox this, thus, fulfills the non-conformist
      sense of exclusion (seclusion too) with society.

      ECKANKAR has a different set of rules and this,
      for many, gives the illusion of special uniqueness
      and greater advances in spiritual freedom. But, it's
      just another KAL trap. There cannot be spiritual
      freedom associated with; the desires and vanity
      of "special initiations," of having requirements
      of an Annual Outer EK Membership for Soul,
      and of being Codependent upon another person
      (HK/Mahanta) for our own big and small decisions
      in life. Where is Self-Mastery and Responsibility?
      ECKists have, unknowingly, lost their original
      non-conformist values as they've bought into
      more and more illusion disguised as an "Easy
      and Most Direct Way" to God-Consciousness.

      Prometheus












      Non ekster wrote:

      I see a lot of posts referring to being your own
      Master as a way to escape the Cult Dogma of
      ECKANKAR's godman, but I must admit that
      sometimes I wonder what this means. The LEM
      is supposed to be basically infallible. It sounds
      sometimes like being your own MASTER also
      means that you are infallible, without needing
      a godman, that you are your own god. That is
      also a lot of pressure for someone to put on
      themselves.

      Wouldn't it be better to say that you are your
      own person living as best you can and learning
      every day, yet realizing that we all make mistakes
      and are not perfect. Maybe there is no ultimate
      answer.

      Maybe it is enough to just realize that you are
      not a slave or a dog on a collar and leash, and
      just run for the open expanse, even if that
      means that we don't know what we are doing
      half the time.

      I'd rather have that than some false security.


      mish wrote:

      Hi, Non ekster and All!

      I think you make a good point about being your
      own god man. I prefer the little "m" master to big
      "M" Master in reference to myself. I believe in the
      spark of God within that guides me, but the responsibility
      of my actions and beliefs fall on me--my being
      responsible for whatever I do or say. But I suppose
      that stressing that one is his own Master rather
      than depending/needing a Godman helps those
      to drop that dependency as in cults like eckankar.

      I also think your example of running the open
      expanse without worrying about making mistakes
      is very good advice--because try as hard as we
      might, we are not perfect. To seek perfection
      is probably not healthy in the long run for anyone!
      So why worry about it? : ) Perhaps, people prefer
      following leaders (spiritual and otherwise), because
      they fear that open run! But in order to unleash
      that freedom after being indoctrinated in a cult
      and man-made religious teachings, one would
      need to see himself as his own master--using
      the little "m" might be the better way to show
      this, though? Certainly, enjoying one's life can't
      be achieved if one is worrying about becoming/
      being perfect.

      Anyway, I'm enjoying reading "The Kite Runner,"
      --just a few pages into it, and I must say it looks
      like excellent reading. Amir, the young boy, is
      confronting his father about what his mullah is
      teaching him in school. It seems that Amir's father
      is a sinner of sorts, so Amir is confused. His father
      helps to explain to his son that "first . . . you'll
      never learn anything of value from those bearded
      idiots." His father goes on to explain, "no matter
      what the mullah teaches, there is only one sin,
      only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a
      variation of theft." I must admit that I never thought
      of theft as encompassing all sins, but this is a
      good point. The theft of one's mastership by a mullah,
      a mahanta, or any other supposedly religious guru
      is a sin! So, claiming self-mastery is important
      in getting out of the bonds of a cult. Harold Klemp
      who professes something he is not, the greatest
      consciousness known to mankind, is a big fat
      sinner! And just as much an idiot as those
      bearded idiot mullahs! : )

      Mish
    • Non ekster
      Yes, and I guess what I am saying is that we aren t a god. I think that would be just more delusion. We are alive, and we is what we is, human. sometimes I
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 12, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, and I guess what I am saying is that we aren't a god. I think
        that would be just more delusion. We are alive, and we is what we is,
        human. "sometimes I just sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sit"

        Nonekster

        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"
        <mishmisha9@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi, Non ekster and All!
        >
        > I think you make a good point about being your own god man.
        > I prefer the little "m" master to big "M" Master in reference to myself.
        > I believe in the spark of God within that guides me, but the
        responsibility
        > of my actions and beliefs fall on me--my being responsible for whatever
        > I do or say. But I suppose that stressing that one is his own Master
        rather
        > than depending/needing a Godman helps those to drop that dependency
        > as in cults like eckankar.
        >
        > I also think your example of running the open expanse without worrying
        > about making mistakes is very good advice--because try as hard as we
        > might, we are not perfect. To seek perfection is probably not healthy in
        > the long run for anyone! So why worry about it? : ) Perhaps, people
        prefer
        > following leaders (spiritual and otherwise), because they fear that open
        > run! But in order to unleash that freedom after being indoctrinated in
        > a cult and man-made religious teachings, one would need to see himself
        > as his own master--using the little "m" might be the better way to show
        > this, though? Certainly, enjoying one's life can't be achieved if
        one is
        > worrying about becoming/being perfect.
        >
        > Anyway, I'm enjoying reading "The Kite Runner,"--just a few pages into
        > it, and I must say it looks like excellent reading. Amir, the young
        boy, is
        > confronting his father about what his mullah is teaching him in
        school. It
        > seems that Amir's father is a sinner of sorts, so Amir is confused.
        His father
        > helps to explain to his son that "first . . . you'll never learn
        anything of value
        > from those bearded idiots." His father goes on to explain, "no
        matter what the
        > mullah teaches, there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft.
        Every other
        > sin is a variation of theft." I must admit that I never thought of
        theft as
        > encompassing all sins, but this is a good point. The theft of one's
        mastership
        > by a mullah, a mahanta, or any other supposedly religious guru is a sin!
        > So, claiming self-mastery is important in getting out of the bonds
        of a cult.
        > Harold Klemp who professes something he is not, the greatest
        consciousness
        > known to mankind, is a big fat sinner! And just as much an idiot as
        those
        > bearded idiot mullahs! : )
        >
        > Mish
        >
        > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Non ekster"
        > <eckchains@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I see a lot of posts referring to being your own Master as a way to
        > > escape the Cult Dogma of ECKANKAR's godman, but I must admit that
        > > sometimes I wonder what this means. The LEM is supposed to be
        > > basically infallible. It sounds sometimes like being your own MASTER
        > > also means that you are infallible, without needing a godman, that you
        > > are your own god. That is also a lot of pressure for someone to put on
        > > themselves.
        > >
        > > Wouldn't it be better to say that you are your own person living as
        > > best you can and learning every day, yet realizing that we all make
        > > mistakes and are not perfect. Maybe there is no ultimate answer.
        > >
        > > Maybe it is enough to just realize that you are not a slave or a dog
        > > on a collar and leash, and just run for the open expanse, even if that
        > > means that we don't know what we are doing half the time.
        > >
        > > I'd rather have that than some false security.
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.