EK Levels of Con. & Initiation... No Virgin Birth for HK
- Hi Etznab and All,
Actually, one doesn't need to go back beyond
the year 2000. The "First Combined Printing"
of my leather bound Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad Books
One & Two was printed under the permission and
with the oversight of Klemp in 2000. Therefore,
Klemp approved of this reference and requirement
for a Virgin Birth of the Mahanta (pg.111) only
Eight Years Ago!
This is as "official" as it gets isn't it? The
Shariyats are the HOLY BOOKS of ECK and these
were edited and reprinted and "combined" under
the direct knowledge and supervision of Klemp in
2000! But, Klemp has never touched (edited) this
Spiritual Law or Requirement for the Virgin Birth
of a true Mahanta.
This is a Shariyat "fact" (among others) that seems
to be overlooked or disregarded by ECKists. Many
ECKists merely accept something until it is proven
otherwise. Until recently, however, people didn't
know about Klemp's family history.
Now we know that HK had an older brother who
died of cancer back in the '80s. Therefore, HK's
mother was Not a Virgin when Harold was born!
This means that HK is Not a Mahanta. Klemp has
lied about his real status. The "fact" that HK has
lied about Not having a Virgin Birth, through omissions
and misrepresentations, means HK is a KAL agent,
a con man, and a false Master! Or, is Klemp so
immersed in fantasy that he, too, is in denial of reality
and truth like his chelas.
"IMO, it would be most helpful to go back to the
time before the words were written. Look at the
state of consciousness of the writer(s) and group
consciousness then. Also it might be helpful, IMO,
to speak with today some of the people who were
at that time instrumental in composing the written
history/dogma for the teachings of Eckankar then."
> About the "Virgin Birth" characteristic of the Mahanta and/or
> Living Eck Master, these and other "mysterious" elements be-
> hind the literal contradictions apparent in written dogma would,
> in my opinion, receive due respect if they were discussed with
> other members (including ex-members) in Eckankar. Primarily,
> IMO, it would be most helpful to go back to the time before the
> words were written. Look at the state of consciousness of the
> writer(s) and group consciousness then. Also it might be help-
> ful, IMO, to speak with today some of the people who were at
> that time instrumental in composing the written history/dogma
> for the teachings of Eckankar then. This way a person would
> not have to speculate or try and find out something on their
> own, but it would be much easier to ask the person(s) there
> at the time of composition what they were thinking.
> Adding to that, it would be helpful, IMO, to have for official
> discussion topics at Eckankar events some of the topics I
> see as most uncertain and/or controversial. They could in-
> clude the members or individuals then which wrote them up
> in the first place, or contemporay staff and/or lawyers that
> might have been instrumental forming that literature.
> The basic problem I see today is so much information
> going round and round, but seldom do we get to hear from
> the "horse's mouth", so to speak. Or, that which is at the
> "center" of the hurricane of controversy.
> Questions asked, when they are referred to anything
> other than the "root cause" can (and often do) lead to
> being "swept away" by the currents of "outer turmoil"
> spinning round the central issue. That "central issue"
> would be the truth, IMO, before it turned out anything
> harmful. Those on the fringe, on the outside of truth
> hoping to get in to the core of it, they will not find the
> "peace" that matters if only facing that which appears
> to prevent it.
> It's not popular though, IMO, to look at history with
> an eye for the facts. Ford Johnson's book, along with
> the subjects it addressed, came out almost 40 years
> after the official founding of Eckankar. Before that, it
> was David Lane in the 70's who's book brought out a
> number of questions. Here it is going on 2008 and it
> would seem a host of questions remain, or continue
> to go unanswered and/or satisfactorily explained.
> I guess it's all part of the karma. And that until
> they are mastered, certain lessons will keep on
> repeating themselves - like questions on a test -
> until the answers match the actual truth.
> At the same time, how can a member of Eckankar
> today answer questions correctly about subjects they
> have not seen the answers to themselves? Because
> usually, before a person takes a test, they have been
> given the answers already. Failing to answer correctly
> means facing the karma of having to go back and look
> at the correct answers and then taking the test over.
> Either way, it seems to me when something comes
> about concerning the answers to certain elements of
> written dogma, if a person has not seen for themself
> what is the answer, they can't very well get rid of the
> prospect of repeating that karma over and over.
> For example, with "Virgin Birth" I don't know why
> exactly that was written. I haven't been able to talk
> with the author and hear about why. Neither can I
> remember it coming up as a topic for discussion,
> or hearing from others in Eckankar at the time it
> was written the answer to why it was written.
> Not only members of Eckankar, but ex-members
> too are at a disadvantage answering correctly what
> is certain to baffle people for ages to come when it
> was not their privilege to see information that would
> lead to the correct answers in the first place.
> In other words, I don't believe people are always
> given satisfactory answers about religion, and they
> sometimes have to wonder if their religion even has
> the actual answers. Somewhere along the line - by
> looking at the chain of events - all of the questions
> can be answered. With history though, it seems to
> me that religious dogma comes up imperfect when
> it forgets, or chooses to forget, about certain links
> in the chain of its outer cause and effect evolution.
> I'm not giving this as support or condemnation of
> religion in general, but as my individual opinion only
> about things that don't appear to jive with fact, and