½
> Sharon, if you were sincere, you would write to me to ask. You have my
> address. You have written to me to unsubscribe from the mailing list that I
> maintain. So we could have talked at any time.
> My only issue now is that you have decided to atack that which you formerly
> loved and you have used me as a scapegoat to do so. Please feel free to go
> your own way in peace, but please do not misrepresent me or the religon which
> I follow.
> If Sharon or anyone else wants to discuss this or any other issue regarding
> Eckankar, please feel free to email me. I will not engage in nasty debate in
> this forum.
Re: The Words of Paul Twitchell
Author:_Sharon V Comstock
Date:_1998/11/19
Forum:_alt.religion.eckankar
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 sar@mindspring.com wrote:
> This is such nonsense. I haven't been on here for several months. I Thought I
> would check in and see what's up. I find my name being misused and the facts
> lied about.
What a coincidence...your name is brought up and you just happen
to pop in!
>
> Several months ago I posted a quote from one of Sri Harold' Klemp's books
> with a note stating that I would love to discuss the quote in private with
> anyone who was interested. This newsgroup is not a place where sincere
> discussion can take place. Sharon has my email address. If she was really
> interested in an answer to her question, she could have emailed me. She did
> not, and her statements here are not true.
No, your offer to discuss quotes in private was AFTER you would
not answer my question about Harold's "editing"....
> Harold Klemp published two books several years ago, titled "Ask the Master"
> Books 1 and 2. They are still in print and available from Eckankar, and can
> be purchased from Amazon.com. This year he published a condensed version of
> these two books, titled "A Modern Prophet". All three books contain Harolds
> responses to letters he has received. Being a condensed version, he has
> shorter answers to some questions in "A Modern Prophet". Some of the edited
> lines pertain to members of Eckankar specifically, and are not appropriate
> for the general public. They are not hidden, they are just inappropriate.
> It makes no sense to talk about initiate reports or volunteering at your
> local ECK Center in a book designed simply to be uplifting to people who may
> not ever be interested in joining Eckankar.
No...the question I asked was about "editing" in Modern Prophet
which applied to the meaning of the question...can't recall
exactly....I've been searching at Dejanews but can't find the
exact posts (VERY slow browsing with my computer)....it was
something Lurk posted....which led to my first resignation in
Eckankar...my resignation letter at that time is at "Oasis"
> Somehow Sharon's view of Eckankar has become so biased, that she thinks that
> an author rediting and republishing his own work is unethical. It is not.
> But she has been so indoctrinated by the David Lane material that even
> something as innocuous as Harold's redeiting of his own words turns into
> something insidious.
Not true, Steve. Re-editing IS unethical when it leads people
away from the original truth of the original material.
I'm sure if you search back thru my posts on Dejanews...I shared
quite openly what I was doing....I did NOT really read & study
the David Lane material until AFTER I decided to leave Eckankar...
specifically Raphael's material about Harold....I know I posted
EXACTLY when I finally read that.
Harold's re-editing was misleading and deceptive.
And why couldn't you answer questions made publicly in public?
> I have no issue with your leaving Eckankar. Like many Eckists, I have left
> myself. No one ever attempted to intimidate me or in any way influence my
> path. No one called to ask. When, two years later, I decided that I wanted
> to start studying Eckankar again, my membership was resumed with no questions
> asked.
No Eckists "interfered" with my leaving either...or tried to
influence me...or really, even help when I was in obvious
"spiritual" trouble...it seemed more like *most* only noticed
after the fact.
Not all...in fairness, yes...there were three who I believed
genuinely care...but one of those three later attacked me
here publicly.
I am not attacking what I formerly loved. I am speaking the
truth about it...and yes, I guess you can call that attacking
in a way.
I have not used you as a scapegoat. I am simply reminding
people of the reasons why I left Eckankar...because the real
reasons I left are being ignored.
You can answer honest questions politely, Steve.
What you call nasty debate...well, others may well perceive that
as avoiding open discussion when someone's faced with questions
they can't answer honestly without making Eckankar look bad.
Well...back to finding my original question....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: The Words of Paul Twitchell
Author: arelurker
Date: 1998/11/22
Forum: alt.religion.eckankar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just can't resist responding to a Steve post.
sar@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> In article
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Rich wrote:
> >
> > > Well, you've got youself and Sharon believing that anyway.....
> >
> > Don't delude yourself further, Rich....
> >
> > By the way, is Steve Runfeldt still around? He never answered
> > that question I asked awhile ago...the one about Harold's
> > editing, which sort of changed the meaning of something in his
> > latest book...seems to me Steve just took off, refusing to
> > "discuss" things...
>
> This is such nonsense. I haven't been on here for several months. I Thought I
> would check in and see what's up. I find my name being misused and the facts
> lied about.
Wow is this synchonous or what! Come on Steve who emailed you.
>
> Several months ago I posted a quote from one of Sri Harold' Klemp's books
> with a note stating that I would love to discuss the quote in private with
> anyone who was interested. This newsgroup is not a place where sincere
> discussion can take place. Sharon has my email address. If she was really
> interested in an answer to her question, she could have emailed me. She did
> not, and her statements here are not true.
>
> Harold Klemp published two books several years ago, titled "Ask the Master"
> Books 1 and 2. They are still in print and available from Eckankar, and can
> be purchased from Amazon.com. This year he published a condensed version of
> these two books, titled "A Modern Prophet". All three books contain Harolds
> responses to letters he has received. Being a condensed version, he has
> shorter answers to some questions in "A Modern Prophet".
A condensed version, eh?
> Some of the edited lines pertain to members of Eckankar specifically, and are not appropriate
> for the general public. They are not hidden, they are just inappropriate.
Yeah it's inappropriate from a marketing standpoint. Kind of hard to
market a religion when it's bible is revealed to be plagiarized.
> It makes no sense to talk about initiate reports or volunteering at your
> local ECK Center in a book designed simply to be uplifting to people who may
> not ever be interested in joining Eckankar.
But I wasn't taking issue with a passage that edited out "initiate
reports" and "volunteering." I clearly posted and demonstrated what I
was thought was deceitful editing. Below is the question. I put the
bracket around the sentence that was edited out.
"Having been active in ECKANKAR for the past six years of my life, it
hurts me to have to express some real doubts and concerns about the
path. [I recently read conflicting information about Paul Twitchell and
his writings.] Can you understand that I want truth and not pat
answers?"
Now the Modern Profit version left out the bracketed sentence which
completely changes the context. The questioner is giving Harold and
explanation about why he/she is doubting the path. Very legitimate
doubts a natural response.
>
> Somehow Sharon's view of Eckankar has become so biased, that she thinks that
> an author rediting and republishing his own work is unethical. It is not.
I think it is in cowardly to edit the passage above.
> But she has been so indoctrinated by the David Lane material that even
> something as innocuous as Harold's redeiting of his own words turns into
> something insidious.
I don't know about indidious. Maybe an expression of his continued
deceitfulness when it comes to Paul's ripping off other people's works.
Just edit the references out and put on a new face for the public?
I think this is what happens when truth gets abused by a marketing
filter necessarly in the empire building process. Yes, eckankar can
truely claim to be a religion.
Lurk
(snipped repeat of the end of Steve's post)
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lurk writes:
>> The following is from a new book by Harold Klemp, the Living ECK Master. It is called "A Modern Prophet - Answers Your Key Questions
About Life".
>>
>> Q: Having been active in Eckankar for the past six years of my life, it
>> hurts me to have to express some real doubts and concerns about the
>> path. Can you understand that I want truth and not pat answers?
>
>Hey Steve, this passage was taken from "Ask The Master, Book II", by
Harold Klemp published in 1994 on page 196
> The following is from a new book by Harold Klemp, the Living ECK
> Master. It is called "A Modern Prophet - Answers Your Key Questions
> About Life".
>
> Q: Having been active in Eckankar for the past six years of my life, it
> hurts me to have to express some real doubts and concerns about the
> path. Can you understand that I want truth and not pat answers?
Hey Steve, this passage was taken from "Ask The Master, Book II", by
Harold Klemp published in 1994 on page196.
"Having been active in ECKANKAR for the past six years of my life, it
hurts me to have to express some real doubts and concerns about the
path. I recently read conflicting information about Paul Twitchell and
his writings. Can you understand that I want truth and not pat answers?"
Steve the reason I'm pointing this out is the version you posted from
the "A Modern Prophet-Answers Your Key Questions About Life" omitted the
sentence "I recently read conflicting information about Paul Twitchell
and his writings" in the Chela's question.
I was wondering if this was a mistake on your part as you typed up the
question?
Or, is this sentence purposefully left out of the "A Modern Prophet"
book by an editor or even Harold to make Harold's response look better?
Perhaps it was one of those astral library editor omissions things.
I think leaving this sentence out kind of alters the context and meaning
of the question and Harold's response, don't you?
I'll await your answer.
Lurk.
Steve, I added the sentence and responded to Mr. Klemp's Answer:
Question From a Student:
"Having been active in ECKANKAR for the past six years of my life, it
hurts me to have to express some real doubts and concerns about the
path. [I recently read conflicting information about Paul Twitchell and
his writings.] Can you understand that I want truth and not pat
answers?"
Mr. Klemp's Response:
" Your questions about truth are sincere, so I will try to give you
an idea of what to look forùand without pat answers, for there are none.
To review your position, it seems you want truth to fall in line
with your previous ideas of what it should be."
LURK:
So Mr. Klemp, when a student experiences legitimate, well founded doubts
as a result of finding out about Paul's deception, do you REALLY feel
comfortable in making the chela's questioning the issue instead of
addressing the question asked?
Hey you should come on a.r.e., you'd fit right in.
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"For instance, when outer evidence conflicts with what you expect
to find you are ready to discount the whole experience of illusion as a
blind trail."
"Maybe I'm being too general for you to catch the image. I'm trying
to get across to you: real truth will always be other than what you
think it is; otherwise wouldn't you have it and know it?"
LURK:
So if real truth will always be other than what you think it is, you can
never really have real truth, eh?
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"Since you know you do not have truth, it must be other than what
you think it is. What does this mean?"
LURK:
In the case of Paul's lying, it means it's hard to know the "real truth"
of him when you obfuscate by making the questioner the issue instead of
answering the question straight. Sounds like your trying to confound
this person with some kind of Varagi double talk.
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"Unless you give up old ideas of what you expect truth to be, it
will always elude you."
LURK:
C'mon Mr. Klemp...give up the expectation that a spiritual teacher be
honest? Maybe that's a requirement in eckankar
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"It is a principle in ECK that one must give up the dear values again
and again if the veil hiding GOD is to be pierced. When one reaches
Self-Realization, he finds the world that he's been so comfortable in
(in an unsettled way) is really at a right angle to truth. And the same
conventional truth seen from the vantage point of God-Realization is 180
degrees off the mark."
LURK:
Yeah, yeah. And it's a principle with SOME spiritual leaders that when a
student asks an honest question, you give them and honest
straightforward answer so they can make a decisions for themselves. When
you reach the point of being a mature spiritual leader, you will give up
this propensity to make the student's lacks the issue when students pose
serious questions. Being a real spiritual master is not anything like
the codependent responses you utter in some of your responses.
Mr. Klemp's Response:
" Now all this philosophy won't help you, nor will the reading of
any book, nor the practice of any spiritual exercise, ..."
LURK:
And apparently asking you a question won't help that much either.
"...unless the desire for truth and God is absolutely pure."
LURK:
Yeah questioner, you're just not doing it right. I dare you ask express
your doubts about the founder of your religion because you found out he
plagiarized. Your heart is not pure, yadda yadda....
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"Have you been misled in the past in your search? Hasn't everybody?
That is the nature of this life experience, which is educational for
Soul."
LURK:
Just because other people may have misled the questioner in the past
doesn't mean it is alright for you, Mr. Klemp, or Paul to mislead
people. Wrapping Paul's deception in this "everyone misleads people" in
no way exonerates Paul or you from misleading people. Take a little
responsibility Mr. Klemp, I believe it's one of the cornerstones of that
little thing you got going there called eckankar.
I've personally have been misled by people in my past. When I pointed it
out, you know what Mr. Klemp? They apologized. They didn't sing some
rationalization tune about me not knowing real truth. They apologized,
admitted their error, and created the space for forgiveness to occur.
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"The outer writings serve only one purpose in their lack of
perfection, since perfection is not in an imperfect world: to show Soul
the inner path of ECK. No one can find the Sound and Light by memorizing
The Shariyat. It can only inspire the individual to exert himself to
meet the Mahanta on the inner planes. This is not really so difficult,
because others are doing it."
LURK:
I thought the outer writings were suppose to have a higher vibration?
Here it turns out to be some body else's vibration.
Mr. Klemp's Response:
"I've found it a waste of time to convince anyone to stay on the
job, or in ECK, in the face of serious doubts. If the individual is
inclined to leave, he should. Unless he does, he is not following his
inner guidance. Some people learn better in places other than ECK. Go
into contemplation to see if you are one. I won't hold you if it is your
sincere desire to study another path."
LURK:
To me Mr. Klemp, doubting is an essential element in a person arriving
at their own truth of these matters. The more information one has about
Paul's lies, the better they can make informed decisions or choices.
Your attitude that it is a "waste" to answer a student's questions sends
a message loud and clear: Either accept the eckankar YOU publicly
present or leave.
This subtle ostracizing of students in eckankar who have legitimate
doubts and questions has a long history and goes all the way down the
line. And you, Mr. Klemp, are leading the way with comments like those
above.
Ask a serious question of Mr. Klemp or some High Initiates and you are
made to feel like you are the problem and don't really want real truth.
So in a sense Mr. Klemp you ended up giving the questioner *Pat Answers*
afterall, the same old motif.
Based upon this passage, I think Harold's new book should be called:
"A Modern Rationalizer-Obfuscates Key Questions About Eckankar"
Lurk
ÿÿÿÿÿ
