XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net   
      
   empty room wrote:   
   >   
   > On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:44:38 GMT, cher  wrote:   
   >   
   > >empty room wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:52:00 GMT, "Ken"  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >   
   > >> >"empty room"  wrote ...   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> On 20 May 2005 08:57:39 -0700, "lackpurity"    
   wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >>>Proclaiming to be a Master, and actually being one are two different   
   > >> >>>things.  Let's use a little discernment on that.  Many have been   
   > >> >>>deceived by impostors, no doubt.  That doesn't mean that True Masters   
   > >> >>>don't exist.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> This is true. If I should ever happen to come across a True Master,   
   > >> >> I will not hesitate to make his or her acquaintance and   
   > >> >> seek their guidance. However, there certainly isn't any shortage   
   > >> >> of egotistical and self deluded or deliberately deceptive fake masters   
   > >> >> around; more than one can shake a stick at, in fact. These fake   
   > >> >> masters are easy to spot, however; if one is paying attention. All   
   > >> >> one needs to do is watch the actions of these fake masters for a   
   > >> >> short while and their actions will give them away without fail. The   
   > >> >> truth reveals itself to those who sincerely seek it. However, if one   
   > >> >> is blinded by egotistical desire for power, status, exotic experiences,   
   > >> >> spiritual 'superiority', etc., one will more likely than not end up at   
   the   
   > >> >> door of a fake master. Such is the way of things. The ego has its   
   > >> >> function, but we are not our egos.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >   
   > >> >So empty suit, you think that you have the inside track on what   
   > >> >characteristics mark a Master?  So clear is your insight that you   
   > >> >believe can define who others should choose to be their teacher?   
   > >>   
   > >> No, I did not say that. Why do you wish to distort my words? To be   
   > >> sure, I said nothing about "teachers".  I was talking about fake masters   
   > >> and the possibility of existence of "True Masters". I said that it is easy   
   > >> to spot a *fake* master, if one is paying attention. I have no idea if   
   > >> there is even such a thing as a "True Master", however; the fake ones   
   > >> are a dime a dozen, and they are easy to spot by those who are paying   
   > >> attention as fake masters are invariably living contradictions of their   
   > >> own words. Those whose actions contradict their own words are   
   > >> clearly fakes, of that there can be no doubt.   
   > >   
   > >You appear to draw an absolute line between teachers and masters. Is   
   > >this the way hair splits in your broad sweeping generalization here?   
   >   
   > LOL! I draw a line between what I said and clearly didn't say, Cherie.   
   > Just so you know, teachers do not necessarily have to be masters,   
   > they can be anyone who teaches, and what they teach does not have   
   > to have anything to do with who they are or how they behave.   
      
   And you couldn't simply explain this to Ken? Or did you expect Ken to   
   live in your head anticipating your viewpoint as the only answer?   
      
      
   > >What True Master can you point to in this instance which would shed   
   > >light on what you're addressing? Obviously if this Master is True...   
   > >according to your emphasis here, others would readily agree.   
   >   
   > Poor Cher. I have already made it clear that I don't even know if   
   > there is such a thing as a "True Master". To repeat myself, I said   
   > it is easy to spot a fake master, however, since they invariably   
   > contradict their own words about what 'masters' are and how these   
   > masters should behave.   
      
   And any fool on usenet knows about the tactic of demanding someone   
   "disprove a negative". I personally think it's easy to spot a fraud too.   
   They start out by suggesting others should disprove the negative they   
   state, and then pat themself on the back for being clever. If you cannot   
   point to a True Master, then you actually have nothing to offer beyond   
   patting yourself on the back? Because from what you've said... your   
   opinions are no better than anyone elses. Something else one learns on   
   usenet... absolute statements from annoymous posters are generally not   
   worth the pixels to see them.    
      
   > >   
   > >> >You know what hubris is, right?   
   > >> Yes, and considering your attempts at distorting my words here,   
   > >> you might due well to consider its meaning.   
   > >   
   > >What can you offer here other than attempting to establish that you and   
   > >you alone can determine who a True Master actually is? And where is the   
   > >example to prove your so called ability to make this distinction? It's   
   > >your pedestal... just trying to see how far you'll go on this one   
   > >without getting a nose bleed.    
   >   
   > Again you continue to distort what I have said. Perhaps you should   
   > instead be asking yourself why you wish to distort my words? Is   
   > the truth really so frightening to you?   
      
   LOL...  If you have nothing to offer the group in terms of a True Master   
   (you laid the points of comparison here), then what you offer here is of   
   little value. That's not frightening, that's a waste of time. Big   
   difference where I come from. All I see is a one trick pony! YAWN......   
      
   > empty room - 975th Living Truth Master   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)