XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net   
      
   Wow.... brilliant catch! I'm impressed.    
      
   "Mr. Random" wrote:   
   >   
   > 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   
   thread/thread/1e1dfacc589ebf14/8e8eaffd26b88237?q=%22melinda10ja   
   k@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)