XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: blah@blah.com   
      
   observer part II wrote:   
   > Kent,   
   >   
   > Your attack on Sri Michael, under the guise of  friendship, when his   
   > heart was wide open while reminiscing with you, came across as really   
   > mean-spirited and seems to reflect more on your own particular   
   > insecurities, fears and attachments than anything else.   
   >   
   > There are people who are interested in a Light and Sound path without   
   > some of the more austere aspects of the Eastern Light and Sound Paths,   
   > which doesn't fit their western lifestyles, and who also do not want   
   > all the baggage that's come out concerning the Western Light and Sound   
   > paths. Sri Michael, to my knowledge, charges nothing for his teachings   
   > while working a regular job to support himself and his son. People   
   > should be free to participate in the "Church" of their choice   
   > without interference. Would a great teacher/Master like Lao Tzu be   
   > recognized as such if he lived today? Not likely imho.   
   >   
   > You were AFRAID that your friendliness might be perceived as an   
   > endorsement of Michael.   
   >   
   > Kent said:   
   >   
   > I liked Michael when I knew him. And it is true that there is much I   
   > don't know about him now.  Unfortunately, my first very friendly, and   
   > genuine, post may have been seen as almost an endorsement of him, and   
   > then later I was dismayed to find that he was, indeed, claiming to be a   
   >   
   > high Master. Honestly, I think this is nonsense. It wasn't that long   
   > after the last time I saw Michael years ago that he announced his   
   > mastership, as I understand it. Could Michael be in such a high state?   
   > Well, I suppose anyone could be such, if you want to view it that way.   
   > Maybe George Bush will pop up tomorrow claiming mastership. Maybe   
   > Martha Stewart will be next.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > You try unsuccessfully to make the case given your "experience" and   
   > also try unsuccessfully to outline your supposed credibility as to why   
   > you are the "Master" of determining who is NOT a Spiritual Master.   
   >   
   > Kent said:   
   >   
   > Yes, I knew Michael many years ago, when I was supposedly a sixth   
   > initiate in a bogus path to God called Eckankar.  I met and shook hands   
   >   
   > with Darwin Gross, as well. And I met Paul Twitchell.  I was there when   
   >   
   > Gross was handed the blue carnation by Gail Twitchell. I was also there   
   >   
   > when Klemp was handed the mastership from Gross. For reasons generally   
   > and widely known, and therefore unecessary for me to detail, many   
   > people don't consider any of these Eckankar masters to be authentic. I   
   > am of that opiniion, as well. Thus, since Michael claims Gross was his   
   > master, and uses Gross to establish a lineage, I don't buy into   
   > Michael's claims, either. I base my view on years of experience with   
   > such issues.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > You see yourself as some sort of savior and hero for those who are   
   > supposedly weaker, less intelligent and more susceptible to being   
   > "duped" by others than wise old Kent.   
   >   
   > Kent said:   
   >   
   > It is a concern I have, after having been taken in by Eckankar at age   
   > 16, that people can be so easily duped by these claimants to the   
   > throne. Many people looking for spiritual assistance are vulnerable and   
   >   
   > lost, and are particularly prone to follow someone who seems to care   
   > and have understanding and compassion. They pour their hearts into a   
   > master, as well as their money, thinking that this master can take them   
   >   
   > to God, only to find that it was all a sham. Frankly, no one can ever   
   > have a monopoly on God, nor does God hand out spiritual franchises. I   
   > would have given Michael a pass, even if he did claim mastership, if he   
   >   
   > did not claim to have special abilities that his followers have   
   > absolute need for, such as the ability to release soul from bondage. It   
   >   
   > bothered me to have to call him out on that, but it would have bothered   
   >   
   > me even more had I not done so.   
   >   
      
   JerryC, is that you?  :)  The reason I ask is that if you look at the   
   following:   
      
   http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_t   
   read/thread/1e1dfacc589ebf14/8e8eaffd26b88237?q=%22melinda10jack   
   yahoo.com%22+JerryC&rnum=2&hl=en#8e8eaffd26b88237   
   (beware the usenet wrap)   
      
   the post is signed "JerryC" yet is supposedly by this "Observer part II"   
     Interesting, no?   
      
      
      
   Yet /another/ 'observer' ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)