Re: Agent for / of God
- Re 'performing actions in the name of another':
In our 21st century, performing actions in the name of another is known as 'identity theft', and is usually done for the purposes of criminality and to try evade responsibility.
Just about sums up the moral code of HK and Ekult!
An ethical person, could never think of performing activity in the name of another being!
--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
> Yes. Twitchell first stole
> from "The Path of the Masters"
> and now Klemp is doing
> the same. Every EKist knows
> that to (supposedly) have
> a karma less life is to do
> everything in the name of
> the Sugmad, the ECK, and
> the Mahanta (Klemp).
> Of course it's all a lie and
> a religious scam because
> EKists will still see cause
> and effect or bad things
> happening to young and
> good people who are H.I.s
> and are supposed to be
> beyond the reach of karma.
> Still, they get cancer or some
> other malady and die before
> their time. Even V.P.s and
> EK Board members! Plus,
> look at Klemp! He's aging
> very rapidly. BTW- Should
> Joan be coloring her hair?
> Isn't that considered to be
> vain for a 9th Initiate... like
> wearing contact lens versus
> "etznab wrote:
> An Eckankartruth repost.
> Considering the idea of agents for and of God, the LEM (Living Eck
> Master) was / is apparently NOT called the one and only (as will be
> shown later in Paul Twitchell's writings).
> Some excerpts (and trying to correct for typos) from Julian Johnson use
> the word "Master" where Paul Twitchell (or should I say, Rebazar
> Tarzs?) used "Sugmad" (a word of "God").:
> [...] Now, if the Master's disciple wishes to escape the creation of
> karma of any sort, let him do whatever he does in the name of the
> Master, acting as his agent. So long as he does that, he will not
> create new karma, because he is acting solely as the agent of another,
> and always the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent. But
> he must do this not merely in a ceremonial way but
> with his entire thought and soul in it. In deep earnest let him do all
> things, every detail of his life, in the name of his Master. This will,
> per necessity, oblige him to do only what he thinks his Master will
> approve of. When he approaches a task or a proposed act, he will
> remember that it is to be done in the name of the Master. He will fix
> his mind on the Master, and then in love and devotion he will
> do the work as a genuine service to the Master and in his name. He will
> remember that nothing is his own. All belongs to the Master because he
> has dedicated all to the Masterâ" even his mind and his body, as well as
> his property. So he must use them all as if he were using the property
> of another, and use them exactly as he believes the owner would like to
> have him use them. [...] But the main point under consideration here is
> that if the disciple uses his mind and his body and his wealth all in
> the name of the Master, he is not creating any karma. Essentially it is
> the Master acting and not the disciple. The disciple is only the agent
> of the Master, So long as he is acting sincerely and wholeheartedly as
> the agent and disciple of the Master, it is really the Master who is
> acting. When our lives are sincerely dedicated to the path, we give up
> all to the Guru and we think only of doing his commands.
> Jesus said: If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.
> (John 8:31)
> And this is so regarding the disciples of any Master. Inayat Khan, a
> noted Sufi, says: Give us all you have, and we will give you all we
> And in that saying there is much wisdom and a great promise. It means
> that if the disciple gives up allâ" mind, body, wealth and soul to the
> Master, the Master will in return give the disciple such wealth as no
> king ever possessed. The Master will give him riches that surpass all
> else on earth, and in exchange for the surrender of himself to the
> Master, he will gain a freedom that makes him master of a limitless
> empire. It is not that the Master wants the disciple's mind or body or
> property. It is for the benefit of the disciple alone that the Master
> asks him to dedicate all to him. Such a gift on the part of the
> disciple generates more love in the disciple and enables the Master to
> do more for him, and at the same time it protects the disciple from
> making mistakes. [... .]
> Based on: The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, Copyright 1939
> [...] "Now, if you wish to escape the creation of karma of any sort,
> then whatever you do, must be done in the name of the SUGMAD, while
> acting as his agent. So long as you do that, you will not create new
> karma, because you are acting solely as the agent of another, and
> always the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent.
> "You must do this not merely in a ceremonial way, but with your entire
> thought and Soul in it. In deep earnest, you must let yourself do all things,
> every detail of your life, in the name of the SUGMAD. This will, by necessity,
> oblige you to do only what you think the SUGMAD intends for you to do.
> "This is the psychology which is a part of the philosophy of ECKANKAR.
> Do every action in the name of the SUGMAD, and you have no responsibility
> toward any living creature in the lower worlds, under the plane of the SUGMAD.
> "When you approach a task, or a proposed act, you will remember that it
> is to be done in the name of the SUGMAD. You will fix your mind merely
> on the name of the SUGMAD, and in sincerity it will be done as a
> genuine service.
> "The SUGMAD does not. The catalytic agent is the ECK power which works
> between you and the SUGMAD. It carries out your action relieving you of
> the responsibility which would otherwise have settled upon your shoulders.
> "You must remember that nothing is your own. All belongs to the SUGMAD,
> because all creation belongs to the greatest deity, and you use your
> body, mind and Soul as the property of the SUGMAD. The main point I am
> making here is that if you use your mind and your body and possessions
> in the name of the SUGMAD, you are not creating any karma.
> "Essentially it is the SUGMAD acting and not you. You are merely the
> agent of the SUGMAD, while at the same time the SUGMAD is your agent.
> So long as you are acting sincerely and whole-heartedly as the agent of
> the SUGMAD, it is really the SUGMAD who is acting as your agent.
> "Gopal Das, noted ECK Master, said that if you give all, you will get
> all. In this saying there is wisdom and a great promise. It means that
> if you give up all, mind, body, wealth and Soul to the SUGMAD, the
> SUGMAD must by ITS own law serve you in return.[... .]
> Reportedly, this was Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country, by Paul
> Twitchell, Copyright 1971
> Notice that Julian Johnson writes: Inayat Khan, a noted Sufi, says:
> Give us all you have, and we will give you all we possess.
> Notice that Rebazar Tarzs says: "Gopal Das, noted ECK Master, said that
> if you give all, you will get all.
> Furthermore, In Paul's Twitchell's book there are other agents of the
> Sugmad. Including the Silent Ones and the Spiritual Travelers.
> But that's not all. Speaking about the Hindu Trinity, etc., Julian
> Johnson writes:
> [...] In fact, these three represent creative currents; they carry the
> creative impulses from the greater powers above. But they have been
> given these individual names as persons. It is well to remember that
> all creative currents may become personal, that is, take individual
> form and assume individual duties. Now these three have generally been
> accepted as the Hindu trinity of gods, most commonly known in their
> pantheon. Millions worship them in spite of their subordinate position.
> They each perform a certain function in carrying on the work of the
> world, in producing human bodies, and in keeping those bodies going.
> They are agents of the supreme power in serving mankind. They are not
> gods to be worshipped. [... .]
> Paul Twitchell has Rebazar Tarzs say:
> [...] In fact, these three represent creative currents. They carry the
> creative impulses from the greater powers above, but they have been
> given these individual names, as persons.
> "It is well to remember that all creative currents may become personal;
> that is, take individual form and assume individual duties, as Krishna,
> Christ, Buddha and others. Now these three have generally been accepted
> as the Hindu trinity of Gods, as commonly known in their literature and
> religion. Millions worship them in spite of their subordinate position.
> These powers are the real servants of man. They perform a certain
> function in carrying on the work of the world, in producing human
> bodies, and in keeping these bodies going. They are the agents of the
> SUGMAD in serving mankind, but not gods to be worshipped by the human
> race. [... .]
> It looks like Paul Twitchell plagiarized, paraphrased Julian Johnson
> and then changed his source to Rebazar Tarzs, an Eck Master. If this is
> true, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Rebazar Tarzs is a real person
> belonging to a real Eckankar Eck Master lineage. Rather, it looks like
> Rebazar was used as a "literary device" to animate Paul Twitchell's
> writings and the writings he compiled from others. This is more than
> simply plagiarism and paraphrasing. This looks (to me) like the
> creation of fiction, pseudo man-made history and religion.
> Somebody show me where this subject is addressed in the Eckankar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: etznab <etznab@>
> To: eckankartruth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 5:58 pm
> Subject: Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Looking for December 1979 Memo
> It might be more than just greed.
> 1977 was when someone wrote a term paper about Eckankar and Eckankar's
> lawyer responded to David Lane. Quoting:
> "With a wide background of study you will find many similarities both
> approximate and exact in many religious statements, history and
> mythology. [....] How did you know Johnson didn't obtain his
> information from Twitchell or Rebazar Tarzs [sic] or some other common
> source? Don't be surprised that many people find the same truths and
> even in the same words, commandments, etc., whether they are
> concepts, stories of events, or levels of God Worlds or consciousness."
> [See: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher
> Consciousness, p. 124]
> What this tells me is the subject of plagiarism was starting to raise
> it's ugly head in 1977. It wasn't long afterward that Darwin announced
> he and Gail were getting a divorce. Subsequent to that, Darwin started
> looking for someone to take over the "spiritual" side of Eckankar,
> while Darwin managed the "business" side.
> Gail would have known about the plagiarisms, IMO, and so would Patti
> Simpson. Gail would also be able to answer questions about the identity
> of Rebazar Tarzs. If it (the truth) wasn't a pretty picture, I suspect
> that neither Gail, nor Patti, nor just about anybody wanted to talk
> about it publicly because it could implicate them in a 'cover-up';
> people might ask, Why are you just mentioning this now?
> It looks like so many people bailed and jumped ship. Gail, Patti,
> Bluth, etc., etc. Why would anybody do that if Rebazar and the LEM were
> real deals?
> I think people knew a lot more than they wanted to tell the membership.
> Even to this very day. And I also suspect so many people are afraid to
> speak, or question the LEM. Most especially, Eckankar members.
> Afterall, Harold Klemp testified that the LEM was an agent for, and
> agent of God.
> Example One: (See: agent for God) - Deposition of Harold Klemp Vol 1,
> May 30, 1984 page 0008 - line 21.
> Example Two: (See: agent of God) Deposition of Harold Klemp Vol 1, May
> 30, 1984 page 0021 - line 9.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: al_radzik email@example.com
> To: eckankartruth firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 4:16 pm
> Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Looking for December 1979 Memo
> Well, there you go. It's all about greed. It still amazes me that
> Eckankar hasn't fallen flat on its face after the overwhelming evidence
> has proven that it's a big lie. Then again, Casey Anthony was acquitted.
> DAVIDP111@ wrote:
> Gail was noted in about 1977 that she 'gave' the copyrights to
> eckankar. In reality she got her first $500,000 check from eckankar.
> part of the agreement was they protected her legally for any copyright
> issues that might arise from Paul's writings. She got $94,000 a year
> for life payments starting then, which was a huge amount at that time,
> lifetime health insurance and a gas expense account for life.