Re: An Obedient ECKist
JS
JohnR...@gmail.com wrote on 3/13/07 9:00 pm:
> A lot of what Garland has been regurgitating here,
> on a.r.e., has been coming from his discourses.
>
> Giviing you the benefit of the doubt, Garland, I
> assume you are aware your product is not just
> so much mental masterbation.
>
> To explain my subject line, I quote the following
> from the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, vol. 2, chapt. 7:
>
> "There is little obeisance in the ECK works for this
> is an affront to Soul. The ECKist is polarized to
> the SUGMAD, and the Kalist is polarized to the
> Kal Niranjan."
>
> It gladdens my heart, Garland, to see you, after all
> these years, finally figure out a GOOD ECKist is
> NOT an ass-kisser.
>
> JR
>
> PS: I hope this helps you overcome your cheilophagia.
>
And yet..., a good lover (of Goodness) is not an Eckist.
What say you, Mr. Etymolophile?
--JS
Tian Yue
> A lot of what Garland has been regurgitating here,
> on a.r.e., has been coming from his discourses.
>
> Giviing you the benefit of the doubt, Garland, I
> assume you are aware your product is not just
> so much mental masterbation.
>
> To explain my subject line, I quote the following
> from the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, vol. 2, chapt. 7:
>
> "There is little obeisance in the ECK works for this
> is an affront to Soul. The ECKist is polarized to
> the SUGMAD, and the Kalist is polarized to the
> Kal Niranjan."
In Eckankar, those who don't obey to at least some degree (don't
drink, don't take drugs, don't sass the Resa or High Initiates too
much, do the exercises, pay the dues, renew the membership, don't
disagree with policy too much, etc., etc., etc.) will not advance in
the initiations. So the assertion that eckists don't obey is nonsense.
As to what people are polarized to, Taoists would say don't polarize
in any fixed way to eck or kal, for neither holds the final answer.
Instead, flow with the cycles of eck and kal, yin and yang, summer and
winter, and harmonize with all the natural forces that keep revolving
and changing. Eck is polarized to kal, and kal is polarized to eck,
for one can't exist or be distinct without the other, therefore they
are bound to each other. Thus, eck is not really eck, and kal is not
really kal. By transcending distinctions, one finds the Tao.
Tian Yue
cher
beliefs are concerned, in your little mind! And you don't think anyone
here can tell your butt naked in the middle of the street. <shaking
her head>
> > PS: I hope this helps you overcome your cheilophagia.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tian Yue
> Yeah... you have all the answers where both Eckankar and Taoist
> beliefs are concerned, in your little mind! And you don't think anyone
> here can tell your butt naked in the middle of the street. <shaking
> her head>
I get a kick out of offering another point of view in the midst of the
eckankar establishment view. This is me not "obeying." I know this
offends you, which only serves to illustrate my point about eckankar
odediance. This is how the ones who don't obey are treated. We all
reveal something about ourselves in what we post. Your post reveals
much. Thanks for that.
Tian Yue
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
cher
the subject matter expert on everything around here! In fact, I'd go
so far as to say that the so called establishment viewpoint you harp
on is really just a shadow of that narcissism you're so well known for
on this group. It's pretty easy to see from the people who show up
here complaining that "Eckankarists" don't last long on this path, and
that leaving the path doesn't stop someone from being an
"Eckankarist".
Like I said, you have all the answers all the time, and hold everyone
else in contempt. Regardless of what anyone else shares here, you
instantly tell them they are wrong and that you are the only one with
the right answers! <chuckle> Seems you carry that into Taoist beliefs
as well, so you haven't learned yet! <shrug> Your loss old boy... no
skin off anyone elses nose. <wink>
Tian Yue
psychology diagnostics and wildly wrought character assassination, I
see nothing here that is factual or of substance to respond to. What
gives? Again, we all reveal something about ourselves in our posts.
You're no exception. Thanks, Cheryl.
Tian Yue
> > Tian Yue- Hide quoted text -
cher
first person on this newsgroup! <smile> The overly dramatic reaction
to what I wrote is certainly familiar where you're concerned. If
anyone wants to test my judgment on this, they can just dig through
the archives and read a sampling of your posts. <wink>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tian Yue
addressing the topic of "obdediance," and full of digressions,
unfounded innuendo and baseless, pubescent pot shots. Thus, as usual,
there is little point in taking your posts seriously.
Tian Yue
cher
to say about it! That's okay, you'll just find one of your handful of
former members to stroke your ego and tell you that you're right
regardless of what the rest of the world knows as fact. After all,
that's what killed the anticult movement.... all that loneliness and
lack of social skills. <smile>
Tian Yue
post of yours. I see nothing new here.
Tian Yue
cher
afterall. <smile>
Tian Yue
> On Mar 14, 12:19 pm, "Tian Yue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ......... to illustrate my point about eckankar odediance.
> We all reveal something about ourselves in what we post.
>
> Kent, lying is a habit of yours isn't it? You should use your
> real name so people in your village can see you for what you
> are in your own words when they google you. Your romanitc
> pseudonyms are your escape from the petty artificiality of
> your small town group consciousness which you bring here
> to scapegoat ECKists with.
>
> JR
It is easy to tell when Eckists are at at a loss for words. They begin
to make ad hominem attacks and threats, rather than discuss issues
like adults. Care to make a comment about ideas and views, rather than
personal insults? Otherwise, your replies are worthless.
Tian Yue
cher
just mature behavior for most human beings. If you choose to be a
member of a group, then you choose to accept certain rules and
guidelines that go with that choice. Mature adults generally grasp
this concept. If you don't like them, then you look elsewhere for
whatever it is your seeking. It's that simple. What's sad is the
attempt to make any rule or guideline appear over the top or wrong,
simply because you personally don't agree with any rules or
guidelines. So your entire argument thus far has been a fallacy. Of
course you'll just summarily dismiss any viewpoint other than your
own, regardless. That's to be expected. :-/
Blah Blah Blah
"Tian Yue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1173890601....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Last time I looked Tian Yue, The ECK and The Way are synomonous, merely
communicated on planet earth in a different place, language, and time. By
transcending the semantic distinctions with an open heart and a sincere
desire one finds the peace and harmony within themselves, where it always
was all along. I agree, with what I think you mean about the positive [eck]
and the negative [kal] streams are bound .... yet they do indeed emmanate
from the One Life Stream ..... and in that context I choose to use the term
ECK, though feel free if you wish to call that the TAO, or LIFE, SPIRIT, GOD
or whatever you want. Doesn't matter to me. In the meantime here we are,
planet earth, and all the unfortunate baggage that goes with that. eg human
beings and the yin and yang!
Blah blah blah :-)
>
>>
>> It gladdens my heart, Garland, to see you, after all
>> these years, finally figure out a GOOD ECKist is
>> NOT an ass-kisser.
>>
>> JR
>>
Then what on earth is a GOOD ECKist?
Are they somehow superior to a BAD ECKist?
LOL
Tian Yue
> "Tian Yue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
You have a bit of a contradiction in your reply. Eck and Kal are in
opposition to each other in eckankar doctrine. As Rich posted:
"There is little obeisance in the ECK works for this is an affront to
Soul. The ECKist is polarized to the SUGMAD, and the Kalist is
polarized to the Kal Niranjan."
-Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, vol. 2, chapt. 7
The Taoist does not "polarize" to anything. Eck and Kal, Yang and Yin,
are all forces that exist within a unity. Eckankar doctrine holds that
there is a personified god to represent the negative, termed Kal
Niranjan. Likewise, Sat Nam would be the personified Eck God, if not
the Sugmad, which also takes on certain personal traits in eckankar
doctrine.
The Taois does not consider yin to be bad or evil or even negative, in
terms of its relative value to yang. In fact, yin qualities (softness,
not forcing, like water) are praised in Taoist classics. Yang
qualities are often considered too forceful in excess (active and
aggressive, like fire) and thus are wisely balanced with yin traits.
There really is no direct equivalent to Kal in Taoism, nor is there a
direct equivalent to Eck, since yang and yin are seen as complementary
and equal to each other. One is not supposed to be better than the
other. What is known in Taoism as Tao (actually, it is more accurate
to spell this as Dao, but since this confuses some of the eckists
here, I'm using the Tao spelling at times) is not at all equivalent to
the English term "God." Also, Eckankar's descriptions of Sugmad are
sometimes very anthropomorphic as well(Sugmad is often described as a
personal god that takes action, like a person) so Tao is not
equivalent to Sugmad, either.
To Taoists, Tao is not equivalent to God.
As to your derogatory reference to planet earth as an unfortunate
place, Taoists would disagree. Earth is yin, Heaven is yang. Neither
are Tao, but are seen as forces or qualities that are part of the
whole. Earth and nature are revered in Taoism, as are all aspects of
the natural world, whether here or elsewhere. Its all part of life.
There is no disdain for the world of nature as there is in eckankar,
with eckankar's descriptions of the earth world as an ashcan.
But Eck is not synonymous with Tao. Not to Taoists. And this view is
not at all due to semantics. Eck, as it is defined by eckankar, is not
Tao. I hope this clears things up for you. The one or two paragraphs
written by Twitchell about Taoism fall far short of being an accurate
explanation of Taoism. Twitchell didn't really understand Taoism, as I
see it.
Tian Yue
>
> Blah blah blah :-)
>
>
>
> >> It gladdens my heart, Garland, to see you, after all
> >> these years, finally figure out a GOOD ECKist is
> >> NOT an ass-kisser.
>
> >> JR
>
> Then what on earth is a GOOD ECKist?
>
> Are they somehow superior to a BAD ECKist?
>
> LOL
>
>
>
> >> PS: I hope this helps you overcome your cheilophagia.- Hide quoted text -
Etznab
In the classical understanding of pre-patriarchal religion,
that of matriarchal religion (or understanding) also held to
the cyclical and mutual relationship between positive and
negative. Some have described matriarchal religion as con-
sisting of a trinity including "Virgin," "Mother," and "Crone."
Each element having natural correspondences with the in-
evitable experience of life from three different perspectives.
In the Hindu pantheon, Kali would equate with the Crone
aspect of the trinity. The "Mother" would equate more with
Vishnu, the "Preserver". Brahma would equate with what
would be the "Virgin" whomb of creation.
Neither was the "Crone" aspect demonized in pre-
patriarchal religion. Rather it was demonized by the
patriarchal religions who roasted many a woman alive
or accused them of being witches in order to possess
their land and many other things of which women were
the once rightful landlords and heirs. In other words, the
wealth of a family belonged to the female descendants
(along with their religious history and beliefs) until it was
opposed by and taken forcibly in the name of certain
patriarchal religious beliefs and/or convictions.
Historically speaking, Church history for many a
century equated women with the Devil, or with the
negative aspect of humanity. I can't think of a more
historically dualistic example of good vs. evil than
what has been done to women as individuals with
the advent of patriarchal religious beliefs and militant
male-dominated militias and/or inquisitions.
Etznab
Blah Blah Blah
I made no derogatory reference to planet earth as an "unfortunate place".
But if this is as good as it gets, if there are not other places far more
beautiful and enjoyable in which to "live" than planet earth, then may God
help us all! I don't care if Taoists agree with me or not. If they wish to
spend eternity here, well who am I to argue with that? :-)
> Earth is yin, Heaven is yang. Neither
> are Tao, but are seen as forces or qualities that are part of the
> whole. Earth and nature are revered in Taoism, as are all aspects of
> the natural world, whether here or elsewhere. Its all part of life.
> There is no disdain for the world of nature as there is in eckankar,
> with eckankar's descriptions of the earth world as an ashcan.
>
> But Eck is not synonymous with Tao. Not to Taoists. And this view is
> not at all due to semantics. Eck, as it is defined by eckankar, is not
> Tao. I hope this clears things up for you. The one or two paragraphs
> written by Twitchell about Taoism fall far short of being an accurate
> explanation of Taoism. Twitchell didn't really understand Taoism, as I
> see it.
>
> Tian Yue
>
It's easy to see how you see things from your detailed explanation above,
well done and thanks.
Nothings changed for me how I see things and I still hold to what I actually
wrote, which may vary from what you think you read or what was the intended
meaning. I see no contradictions. What I wrote was not a reference to the
Shariyat quote in any way [ it is a different issue ] but was a response
and comment on your post alone. Either way, it doesn't amount to much except
sharing of different perspectives and individual understandings. I make no
claims about Paul Twitchells understanding, nor eckankar's definitions or
dogma, nor Tao/Dao defintions or dogma, I simply shared my own personal
comments about the specifics I mentioned. That's it, nothing more, nothing
less. Make of it what you will, it doesn't matter to me. :-)
>
Tian Yue
Interesting....Eckists pride themselves in being so positive, yet most
are down-right gloomy about this world we live in. There are both
unpleasant and wonderful things in this world. Its probably fairly
evenly distributed between good and bad. But just because there are
unpleasant experiences, doesn't mean we should trash the planet. That
only adds to the problems we face. What a terrible, pessimistic way to
see life! I like to see both aspects, and I flow with things as best I
can when life gets stormy.
Thanks, but you did respond to my post with some contradictions, and
if you respond that way to one of my posts, don't be too surprised if
I clarify some things a bit. In your reply, you equated Eck to Tao,
which is incorrect to nearly anyone who has any understanding of
Taoism. It is, in fact, a common misunderstanding that you made, so
you're not at all alone. Taoism is quite different from what most
people think about the philosophy.
Tian Yue
Blah Blah Blah
I find it hard to grasp why suggesting in a round about way that there must
be other places far more beautiful and enjoyable than planet earth is seen
as being pessimistic.
I would have thought the opposite would be pessimistic. Oh well.
Thanks, I hear what you mean. I guess if I said maybe you could consider
that I have a better grasp of the original Tao than any current Taoist, and
how it relates to todays eck teachings, then you'd probably accuse me of
being an outrageous fraudster or a complete fool.
But luckily, I never said that. Nor some other things you probably think I
said. :-)
Tian Yue
Well, my friend, I'll take your word for it. (heh, heh). I'm glad you
don't take the attitude so many eckists take, and the attitutude from
Letter's to a Chela as expressed by Twtichell. Its wonderful you don't
arrogantly presume to know more about Taoism than Taoists just because
you follow eckankar, which is a very, very different philosophy.
Tian Yue
cher
of the topic. <smiling> That's all I CAN SAY ABOUT IT. <giggle>
On Mar 23, 4:04 pm, "Tian Yue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
cher
different books and projects that onto any available ECKist and
proclaims this is what they think! You've always put words in other
peoples mouths, and then condemned them for what you assume, even when
they say the opposite! Your superiority is a false premise, old boy!
It's called "straw man" and that's what you've mastered.
Oh, and p.s.! Only ardent detractors take every word written by Paul,
as gospel! I don't know any ECKist today who is that severe an
eckankarist! Just detractors! Kind of weird, hey? Telling, at
least! ;-)
Blah Blah Blah
"cher" <Gruen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174767666.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/TAOISM.HTM Interesting short overview
> of the topic. <smiling> That's all I CAN SAY ABOUT IT. <giggle>
>
LOL , I love The Way you "get things" Cher!!!
yes well, apparently, some people just can't stop talking about it!!! Blah
blah blah ....... :-)
cher
On Mar 27, 9:38 pm, "Blah Blah Blah" <huca...@blah.com> wrote:
> "cher" <Gruendem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Tian Yue
> "cher" <Gruendem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174767666.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/TAOISM.HTM Interesting short overview
> > of the topic. <smiling> That's all I CAN SAY ABOUT IT. <giggle>
>
> LOL , I love The Way you "get things" Cher!!!
>
> yes well, apparently, some people just can't stop talking about it!!! Blah
> blah blah ....... :-)
>
Lao Tzu, who was the author of the Taoteching, was ridiculed by an
ancient commentator for stating, "Those who know, don't talk, and
those who talk, don't know," and then proceeding to write a treatise
of 5,000 characters about The Way and its Virtue (Taoteching). Taoists
laugh about such things all the time, and it is often observed by
scholars that Taoist philosphy is one of the few, or perhaps the only
of world philiosophies that doesn't take itself too seriously. Taoists
like to make fun of themselves, and don't take religion and the ways
of man very somberly.
I don't agree with every statement on Cheryl's link, a few statements
aren't quite right. That's the internet for you--every one's an
expert. That is a very poor description of Taoism, for what it's
worth.
As to the ridicule of Taoism, I'm not offended at all.
First, I expect ridicule from Eckists. If eckists didn't condescend to
all other religions, they wouldn't be eckists.
Second, though I really like Taoism, I don't really describe myself as
a Taoist. Been there, done that, with eckankar. I like to use Taoism
as a comparison to eckankar.
Third, is the famous reference to ridicule from Taoist literature:
"When the superior man learns of the Tao he immediatly begins to
embody it.
When an average man learns of the Tao, he half believes it, half
doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao.
Thus it is said,
The path into the light seems dark,
The path forward seems to go back,
The direct path seems long,
True power seems weak,
True purity seems tarnished,
True steadfastness seems changeable, True clarity seems obscure,
The greatest art seems unsophisticated,
The greatest love seems indifferent
The greatest wisdom seems childish.
The Tao is nowhere to be found.
Yet it nourishes and completes all things."
from the Tao Te Ching, a book far, far beneath Eckankar, on the mental
plane of the lower worlds. If it weren't beneath Eckankar, it wouldn't
be the Tao.
Translated by Stephen Mitchell
Blah Blah Blah
> On Mar 27, 10:38 pm, "Blah Blah Blah" <huca...@blah.com> wrote:
>> "cher" <Gruendem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174767666.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/TAOISM.HTM Interesting short overview
>> > of the topic. <smiling> That's all I CAN SAY ABOUT IT. <giggle>
>>
>> LOL , I love The Way you "get things" Cher!!!
>>
>> yes well, apparently, some people just can't stop talking about it!!!
>> Blah
>> blah blah ....... :-)
>>
>
>
> Lao Tzu, who was the author of the Taoteching, was ridiculed by an
> ancient commentator for stating, "Those who know, don't talk, and
> those who talk, don't know," and then proceeding to write a treatise
> of 5,000 characters about The Way and its Virtue (Taoteching). Taoists
> laugh about such things all the time, and it is often observed by
> scholars that Taoist philosphy is one of the few, or perhaps the only
> of world philiosophies that doesn't take itself too seriously. Taoists
> like to make fun of themselves, and don't take religion and the ways
> of man very somberly.
>
Sounds like a few eckists I know ........ which reminds me of my original
simple comment about The Way and The ECK.
But I did have a laugh to myself yesterday when I thought about the huge
library of books that have been published under the Eckankar banner. I get a
kick out of irony and the contradictions in life/religion/spirituality etc,
so yeah I also got a giggle at your quote "Those who know, don't talk, and
those who talk, don't know," ..... like it's just funny isn't it?
> I don't agree with every statement on Cheryl's link, a few statements
> aren't quite right. That's the internet for you--every one's an
> expert. That is a very poor description of Taoism, for what it's
> worth.
>
> As to the ridicule of Taoism, I'm not offended at all.
>
> First, I expect ridicule from Eckists. If eckists didn't condescend to
> all other religions, they wouldn't be eckists.
>
lol, ahh that's a little too unfair across the board, but there's truth in
what you say too. I've done it and seen it, but we're always re-creating
ourselves one baby step at a time, or at least making the effort. You're no
different I would imagine.
> Second, though I really like Taoism, I don't really describe myself as
> a Taoist. Been there, done that, with eckankar. I like to use Taoism
> as a comparison to eckankar.
>
Well my perspective was simply that i see enormous similarities between the
two. Paul T stated as much in black and white [imho] it's just a different
time and package and semantics.
> Third, is the famous reference to ridicule from Taoist literature:
>
>
> "When the superior man learns of the Tao he immediatly begins to
> embody it.
>
> When an average man learns of the Tao, he half believes it, half
> doubts it.
>
> When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud.
>
> If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao.
>
> Thus it is said,
> The path into the light seems dark,
> The path forward seems to go back,
> The direct path seems long,
> True power seems weak,
> True purity seems tarnished,
> True steadfastness seems changeable, True clarity seems obscure,
> The greatest art seems unsophisticated,
> The greatest love seems indifferent
> The greatest wisdom seems childish.
>
> The Tao is nowhere to be found.
> Yet it nourishes and completes all things."
>
Wonderful ........ very ECKie from where I sit.
> from the Tao Te Ching, a book far, far beneath Eckankar, on the mental
> plane of the lower worlds. If it weren't beneath Eckankar, it wouldn't
> be the Tao.
>
<G> I don't see it that way. I'm not ridiculing Tao/Dao blah blah blah. I
like it, i think it's a valuable part of the things in the past and now. So
whatever, I'm happy. ;-)
> Translated by Stephen Mitchell
>
>
>
>
Tian Yue
I get the sense, though, that you haven't read PT's comments about
Taoism and other world religions and philosophies in Letters to a
Chela. On Taoism, PT makes a mess out of it, as if he just made up his
observations out of whole cloth. There are numerous errors, he claims
certain statements are made in the taoteching that don't exist, and he
definitely maligns taoism, as well as all the rest he speaks of. I'd
type it all in, but too lazy at the moment.
Tian Yue
On Mar 28, 8:16 pm, "Blah Blah Blah" <huca...@blah.com> wrote:
> "Tian Yue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1175115877.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 10:38 pm, "Blah Blah Blah" <huca...@blah.com> wrote:
> >> "cher" <Gruendem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1174767666.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/TAOISM.HTMInteresting short overview
> > Translated by Stephen Mitchell- Hide quoted text -
Blah Blah Blah
> Thanks, mate. You are at times a genuinely good person.
>
Thanks, and at times I can be a down right ***************. But I do my best
no matter how it may look in the moment. Had a life time of not being very
happy about my best, btw. ;-)
> I get the sense, though, that you haven't read PT's comments about
> Taoism and other world religions and philosophies in Letters to a
> Chela. On Taoism, PT makes a mess out of it, as if he just made up his
> observations out of whole cloth. There are numerous errors, he claims
> certain statements are made in the taoteching that don't exist, and he
> definitely maligns taoism, as well as all the rest he speaks of. I'd
> type it all in, but too lazy at the moment.
>
> Tian Yue
>
No worries, Paul was like that, one day he'd be saying what was wrong with
something and at the next moment or day he'd be talking or writing what was
great about the very same thing. At times Harold can appear to be doing the
same thing. [ this here can cover ur other reply to me about the mahanta and
what it is or isn't as well ]
You don't need to go out of your way to convince me the writings get or are
confusing and contradictory in many ways. I do get that for sure! <G>
anyway, i understand ur addressing what Paul had to say, and not arguing
with me, and i'm just saying I don't talk for paul or anyone, but am saying
where I at this point in time [ without being an self-proclaimed expert on
either ] can see many many similarities. it's my observations about what I
have seen and personally focussed on, and that's all, imperfect as they are
no doubt are in the big picture.
so it's all good. THX
Blah Blah Blah
I just copy and paste this in case ... THX
> Thanks, mate. You are at times a genuinely good person.
Thanks, and at times I can be a down right ***************. But I do my best
no matter how it may look in the moment. which can get pretty damn ugly
that's for sure. hehehehe ;-)
> I get the sense, though, that you haven't read PT's comments about
> Taoism and other world religions and philosophies in Letters to a
> Chela. On Taoism, PT makes a mess out of it, as if he just made up his
> observations out of whole cloth. There are numerous errors, he claims
> certain statements are made in the taoteching that don't exist, and he
> definitely maligns taoism, as well as all the rest he speaks of. I'd
> type it all in, but too lazy at the moment.
>
> Tian Yue
>
No worries, Paul was like that, one day he'd be saying what was wrong with
Tian Yue
On PT's view of religions and philosophies, PT was fairly consistant
in his denigration of them as all being beneath eckankar. His writings
about Taoism were down right factually incorrect. By factually
incorrect, I mean, for example, he made statements about assertions he
attributed to the Taoteching that simply are nowhere to be found in
that document. He was incredibly sloppy with the verifiable facts in
his general slap-down of Taoism. I could go on in detail about this,
but I'm not in the mood, unless really pressed to do so, which might
inspire me.
Tian Yue
cher
with those words. A wise mature person recognizes this distinction
rather than imposing their "reaction" onto words in an attempt to make
them suspect. Don't see that too often on this group.... wise and
mature. Something else we seldom see here is the individual who
accepts ownership of their interpretation as unique and perhaps just
another prespective. Unfortunately what we do see a great deal of are
narcissists who glory in projecting their narrow viewpoints onto
anything that strikes a chord of fear in their heart. But that's
common in all of humanity. <shrug>
> Tian Yue- Hide quoted text -
Ken
>>
> On PT's view of religions and philosophies, PT was fairly
> consistant in his denigration of them as all being beneath
> eckankar.
His point was that *all* religions are beneath the ineffable
reality of Spirit.
The outer teaching of Eckankar is a religion in the world too,
btw. I am very certain that his opinion of world religions
would apply to that outer teaching today.
I don't say that to denigrate Eckankar, but to point out that
the religious forms found in this world are not the real thing,
so to speak. You know what I mean. The Tao that can be spoken
of is not the Tao.
The critics here always confuse the two.
--
Ken
Tian Yue
> Tian Yue wrote:
> >>
> > On PT's view of religions and philosophies, PT was fairly
> > consistant in his denigration of them as all being beneath
> > eckankar.
>
>
> His point was that *all* religions are beneath the ineffable
> reality of Spirit.
>
> The outer teaching of Eckankar is a religion in the world too,
> btw. I am very certain that his opinion of world religions
> would apply to that outer teaching today.
>
> I don't say that to denigrate Eckankar, but to point out that
> the religious forms found in this world are not the real thing,
> so to speak. You know what I mean. The Tao that can be spoken
> of is not the Tao.
>
> The critics here always confuse the two.
>
> --
> Ken
>
Nonsense, Ken. You know better than to state what you have. Read this:
"Since everything in this physical universe is controlled by Kal
Niranjan (the negative power), we have nothing that can say it
represents the ultimate in the perfect sense, except ECKANKAR (sic)."
-Sharyat Ki Sugmad, Book 1, chapter 6, by Paul Twitchell
"All religions, philosphies, and sacred doctrines are the offsprings
of Eckankar."
-Letters to a Chela, discourse 4, page 1, by Paul Twitchell
"You [the eckankar follower reading Letters to a Chela] are superior
in your knowledge and thinking over all others who are not in
Eckankar."
-Letters to a Chela, discourse 4, page 1, by Paul Twitchell
"The Living ECK (sic) Master is always higher on the spiritual scale
of God than any of the saints of the worldly religions."
-Sharyat Ki Sugmad, Book 1, chapter 6, by Paul Twitchell
And Ken, you have to be daft not to have realized by now that PT used
the words Eck and Eckankar interchangably. It is obvious in certain
contexts that by Eck he meant Eckankar. Eck is often used by PT as a
shortened form of the word. He could thus play with the semantics (and
if you think he wasn't aware he was playing loose with semantics in
many instances, you're extremely naive--PT loved to play with
semantics) as if eckankar was simply spirit in the form of teachings.
In fact, in his mind eckankar was not a religion or philosophy, which
he had stated over and over again very prominantly is his writings. So
when he referred to religions and other teachings, he did not include
eckankar among them. (newer eckists may not have read their founder's
material, so may not know that PT would have possibly had a stroke if
he knew Klemp had decided to call eckankar a religion--he was emphatic
that eckankar was not to be thrown in with world religions and
philosophies, or any other teaching)
He referred to the LEMs as superior to all other teachers. So, the
teachings emanating from such masters would, of course, also be
superior, as he emphatically stated on many occasions.
He also stated that people could not reach the higher worlds without
an Eck master.
He has nothing but grandiose praise for eckankar, but is on record for
denigrating specifically every major religion on the planet. Letters
to a Chela contains negative comments about every major religion, but
praises eckankar at every turn of the page.
So, it is abundantly clear to most people that PT did not include
eckankar in his put-downs of all world religions. I think most eckists
know this who are being honest, which isn't always the case in these
A.R.E. debates, in which people tend to also take advantage of PT's
odd semantics.
Tian Yue
Ken
In Paul's writings the word ECK can refer to either Spirit or
be a shortened version of ECKANKAR. And ECKANKAR can refer to
either the outer teaching or the formless inner path.
The surface meaning of the words do not constrain the inner
message, just as a glass jar can't hold the entire ocean. The
message is found in the unspoken, if one is open to it.
--
Ken
Tian Yue
Obviously, you and others are backpeddling away from PT's frequent
referrences to his outragious and grandiose assertions of his personal
abilities and god-like descriptions of his state of consciousness.
Unfortunately for those who would camophlage the obvious, PT's
comments are on record, and he made such comments so abundantly and
frequently, that no matter what you say, you really won't succeed in
putting that particular genie back in the bottle. If a person makes
certain statements over and over, it eventually becomes clear he
really does intend to be stating exactly what he appears to stating.
That you, Doug and others try so hard to pretend this isn't his
meaning, in itself speaks volumes. I see this as cognitive dissonance.
You're trying to have it both ways, as is frequently seen in cultic
thinking. Letters to a Chela, the Shariyat, Satsang Three and others
writings leave nothing to one's imagination as to exactly what PT
meant. All one need do is go to an eck seminar and see all the photos
of klemp, and observe the hushed, worshipful tones of the audience
when Klemp walks into the room, and it all becomes too plain to see.
According to well known eck doctrine, the LEM holds the key to god
through the initiation. That makes him indispensible for access to
god. The Mahanta, the LEM, is understood to oversee the world, and all
events and catastrophies. These statements are very similar to how any
religion describes God. That makes him god-like. The more you deny it,
the more it becomes obvious it is true. PT's words are clear, and the
behavior of the rank and file membership are clear: The Mahanta, the
Living Eck Master is definitely god-like, and serves as the de-facto
representative of god, without whom god is not completely accessible.
I find the denials rather transparent. I'll respond to some of the
other posts later when I have time and go into more detail about this.
Tian Yue
Ken
I am not "backpeddling". I'm simply stating my understanding
of what Paul said as simply as I can.
Lots of bluster and hot air along with representations of what
other people supposedly believe. But you fail to mention what
specifically you thought was inaccurate in what I said just
above.
In other words, why don't you focus on the real live Eckist who
is speaking to you right now, rather than addressing the
possible beliefs of the imaginary beings who populate your
consciousness?
My honest opinion is that the reason for Paul's criticism of
world religions was to point out that all fall short of the
ineffable reality of the Divine. The outer teaching of
Eckankar is a religion, obviously. And I remain fairly certain
that his opinion of world religions would apply to the outer
teaching of Eckankar today. They are all fallible.
Again, I don't say this to denigrate Eckankar, but to point out
that the religious forms found in this world are not the real
thing Itself. Just like the word "cow" is not a Cow, and the
tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao.
People have been confusing the two for quite a long while
apparently.
--
Ken
Doug
Here are some actual words from Paul that seem to agree with you, Ken.
This is from the book, Talking To The Spirits by Warren Smith, who
interviewed Paul Twitchell in 1971.
Q: Would you declare that Eckankar offers the only path to God?
PT answers: I am well aware that there are many approaches to God, for
nobody has a monopoly on any path. God is, and of course, soul is,
since soul is a part of God. When we understand this as truth, then we
learn that all a teacher can do is to put our feet upon a path and
point the way. No one teacher, living or past, can give us the actual
understanding of truth. The knowledge and understanding of truth is
wholly dependent upon the individual to make his way to truth.
When one reaches a certainty of this spiritual knowledge, he suddenly
knows the secret of the ages. He has learned the simplest of all
things, that each one of us is truth itself. We are the living truth,
the very embodiment of God. The essential nature of Eckankar is
freedom from all things - the complete independence of soul.
Q: Then it would not be necessary to have a master after one has truly
accomplished soul travel and learned its precepts?
PT answers: The true master will continue to encourage his chela to
keep trying his spiritual wings until he can come and go in the spirit
body with relative ease.
No real master will seek to hold a chela forever. Once the student has
established himself on the fifth plane of consciousness, he will be
released by the true master. The individual in Eckankar must always be
free to accept his own responsibility and to stand on his own feet.
The achievement of spiritual freedom through soul travel enables the
enlightened one to travel the illuminated path free from all physical
and spiritual entanglements. He is free from the world of matter,
energy, space, and time. He is responsible thereafter only to the
Ultimate Being.
The crowning achievement of the adept in soul travel is that he will
become a co-worker with the Supreme Deity. He lives a life of freedom
above the so-called physical laws of the conventional thinker; and
while he lives in this world, he is not of it.
******
I found this interesting, because we find Paul here responding to
questions being asked. So many of the comments raised that criticize
Paul are just cases where people are asking questions, but Paul
doesn't have a chance to respond, since he left this world long ago.
Give him a chance to answer and he usually comes up with something
that makes a lot of sense.
Doug.
Rich
"Ken" <not...@all.com> wrote
<snip>
> I am not "backpeddling". I'm simply stating my understanding of what Paul
> said as simply as I can.
>
<snip>
Rich
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote
Thanks for sharing this Doug. It's the way I recall growing into an
understanding of my place with Paul and Eckankar from the beginning of my
study. The critics appear to have preferred other ways...
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Ken
Well now, that's new stuff there. Or new to this group at any
rate. I don't know that these two answers really address the
question of how Paul saw the outer organization, but what he
says here fits with how I see these things.
Thanks Doug.
--
Ken
Etznab
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doug (and others),
I thought those quotes were good ones to share. And while I will
admit that words as symbols can limit the overall message, it does
appear that Paul Twitchell did a good job at putting words together
and answering those questions in that instance.
It is my opinion that Paul did this - put words together - in many
instances. And each time related to specific questions - whether
actual or imagined - in order to articulate his position on things in
general.
We don't always see the "context", perhaps, of what a person
says. The time, the place, the disposition of the author and the
audience they are having to address. Much misunderstanding of
symbols can come from taking things out of context. This is my
opinion.
Looked at in certain contexts, although they may not equate
with the original, I notice that it can make a difference. Because
in certain contexts, I don't have much problem with the words or
writings of others. Usually when I see them closest to the more
original context of the author. Not always necessarily because I
agree with the words by doing this, but because I gain a better
understanding about WHY. About why they were created. And I
can see the more genuine cause and effect relationship between
each component. It is not such a great mystery.
A child could draw a picture, that symbolically resembles what
I myself can't attribute to any known thing. However, if I could in
some way communicate with the child and they were to tell me
what it was - to them - (and why), then the symbol could have an
added meaning for me. But if I could not talk with the child, or if I
never even saw the artist at all, then the meaning of that symbol
would be the meaning added to it by me! Either that, or someone
else who defined it. Someone else with whom I might agree. This
does not mean that I could never come close to understanding
what the symbol was, or even comprehend very closely what the
author meant. However, it very well could mean that I would have
no way of "proving" that my comprehension was even close. Still,
it doesn't mean that I was not close, but it could mean that I am
alone with what I know.
And of course, I could simply disagree and/or refuse to accept
what any particular symbol means - even if the author explained
it to me honestly what it was designed to convey. There are many
reasons for this. The symbol might resemble something closely
that I believe (or have been taught) to be something else! In this
case I might simply dislike, have prejudice, or even preconceived
notions about any particular symbol. So IMO there could be many
different reasons why a symbol might become a limited form of
communication.
Does this mean that what every symbol truly stands for is
dependent on the artist or the observer? Say an artist makes
a tree - in an attempt to copy a real tree. One that they have
actually seen, touched and experienced. But say it does not
exactly resemble the original tree. Now the artist and all who
view their creation are looking at something different from the
original. It is a misrepresentation of an actual thing. A symbol
has been born - with the sole effect of limiting an actuality.
I don't know Paul Twitchell personally. And I don't imagine
that many of us on A.R.E. do now, or have in the past known
Paul completely (yet I can't speak for all).
In some ways what I see with the dialogues on any given
subject (Eckankar or not) is that each person is attempting
to improve it. Either that or leaving it alone.
In my opinion this is bound to happen with the image of
God most of all. And with anything related to God. So let
us not blame one another for the image of something that
to us does not agree. People are going to see what people
see and we really can't control what that will be. IMO. But
if it really matters, and if it really bothers us - the definition
of symbols by others - I think the best we can do in order to
see them differently is to look at the reasons WHY. How far
do we go at doing this when it comes to others that appear
to see things differently from ourselves?
Sometimes knowing why something means what it does
to another person ... sometimes that is enough to indicate
the difference between what each person sees.
However if we don't know the reason why, refuse to listen
and look at the reason why, then it is possible people will
forever be at odds. This is something I have seen.
For people - no matter what path they are on - try walking
in the other person's shoes first, before describing the path
that you think that they are on. This would be my advice.
I think the quotes in this instance provided by Doug are a
step in the right direction. And even much of what he said.
Especially "... Paul doesn't have a chance to respond ...."
I think that is a fair statement.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The last three paragraphs appeared very meaningful to me.
Insightful as well. Thanks for sharing (giving) that.
Etznab
Rich
"Ken" <not...@all.com> wrote
My guess: The second answer can be found in the discourses.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Ken
> "Ken" <not...@all.com> wrote
>>
>> Well now, that's new stuff there. Or new to this group at
>> any rate.
>
> http://heh.pl/&3ap
>
> My guess: The second answer can be found in the discourses.
Heh! Nine eh? Not new material obviously, but it's a new
interview that I hadn't heard of before.
--
Ken
Tian Yue
Here are the same the questions PT's interviewer posed, but with the
answers given through out Paul Twitchell's books, in which we see a
very different PT than the one talking to a reporter. PT was a public
relations man, and he knew when it was in his interests to tone down
his rhetoric. But when writing to the true believers, he let his real
intentions become extraordinarily clear. The difference between off
the cuff answers and those published is that the latter are statements
PT had ample time to ponder and consider, and are much more definitive
since he knew these would be his published words:
Also included in my response is an example or PT's doublespeak, in
which he gives out conflicting messages. His technique of creating
cognitive dissonance in his students with conflicting messages does
work quite well to keep students on the path. His interview answers
which he gave to the two questions reveal a person willing to say
whatever was necessary to keep peaple off balance and confused.
Several more examples follow at the end of my response.
QUESTION: Would you declare that Eckankar offers the only path to God?
"Since everything in this physical universe is controlled by Kal
Niranjan (the negative power), we have nothing that can say it
represents the ultimate in the perfect sense, except ECKANKAR (sic)."
-Sharyat Ki Sugmad, Book 1, chapter 6, by Paul Twitchell
"By the Eck alone the chela can transcend all the lower regions and
rise into the heavenly world of the Sugmad. Without the Mahanta, the
Living Eck Master, no one can attain conscious union with the stream
of pure life, nor can he go further than the first region of light,
which is the astral."
-Paul Twitchell, The Spiritual Notebook
"All religions, philosphies, and sacred doctrines are the offsprings
of Eckankar."
-Letters to a Chela, discourse 4, page 1, by Paul Twitchell
"You [the eckankar follower reading Letters to a Chela] are superior
in your knowledge and thinking over all others who are not in
Eckankar."
-Letters to a Chela, discourse 4, page 1, by Paul Twitchell
"The Living ECK (sic) Master is always higher on the spiritual scale
of God than any of the saints of the worldly religions."
-Sharyat Ki Sugmad, Book 1, chapter 6, by Paul Twitchell
QUESTION: Then it would not be necessary to have a master after one
has truly accomplished soul travel and learned its precepts?
"Every living ECK master chooses his chelas and few are let go. If
they do wish to go, it means they leave voluntarily and it is mutually
agreed upon. If the chela decides to leave the living ECK Master on
his own without first discussing it, then he has problems to face
which are more severe than ever. He has left the Master and gone into
the wilderness alone to face the wild beasts which will devour him. It
is typical of the vain chela to announce that he is leaving without
asking permission."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 144
If any Soul who is a chela or initiate leaves the path of Eck for
another way to the heavenly worlds he must expect his karma to be
extended. His karmic burden increases as he gathers more, going
through incarnation after incarnation, He will again someday meet with
the Living Eck Master, when ready. (SKS 1, 97)
At no time does the Mahanta ever leave one who has become his charge,
regardless of whether or not the chela tries to break his ties.
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 65
Those who need the Living ECK Master will always stay with him, but
those who feel that they are beyond this are wrong in their thinking.
They have not examined the truth, and will go afoul of the illusions
established by the Kal.
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 170
TIAN YUE RESPONDS:
So, one must ask permission to leave. One must first "discuss" leaving
the Master. If the chela doesn't ask for permission, and discuss
leaving with the master, which implies a degree of servitude and
obediance expected from Twitchell, then the chela will be devoured by
beasts! And chelas who don't ask for permission are vain. I see.
Whoa there, Maestro. Thou doest presume far too much. And thou doest
reveal much, as well.
This is an extreme example of the threats laid upon the chela, as well
as more examples of doublespeak. Notice he says leaving is voluntary
on one hand, but on the other permission is required. And if
permission isn't requested and actually discussed, wild beasts will
devour the chela, and problems will be severe. Implied is a power the
master has to grant safe passage to the chela who wishes to go. This
requirement for permission is quite ominous, if one thinks about it.
Permission? Permission more than implies the Master has power over the
chela. Wild beasts? Wilderness? Being eaten? Severe problems? My lord,
are we still in the dark ages?
Here's another way of putting this. I've decided to interview PT with
a few questions. His answers were found in his published works. The
difference between off the cuff answers and those published is that
the latter are statements PT had ample time to ponder and consider,
and are much more definitive since he knew these would be his
published words:
QUESTION: WHAT HAPPENS, PT, IF ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS LEAVES ECKANKAR?
[TECHNIQUE ONE - IF YOU LEAVE ME YOU WILL BE CAUGHT IN THE ASTRAL.]
"Should physical death come before man finds liberation, he will go
through a period in the Astral world {...}until he is given rebirth
again." "He does this over and over again until one day he meets again
with the Living ECK Master."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 132
"If any Soul who is a chela or initiate leaves the path of Eck for
another way to the heavenly worlds he must expect his karma to be
extended. His karmic burden increases as he gathers more, going
through incarnation after incarnation, He will again someday meet with
the Living Eck Master, when ready."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 97
"No one can get his release from the net of karma without the Living
ECK Master."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 140
"Should Soul cease to spiritually unfold It will, after the death of
the body, go into the seven worlds of Avernus, the dark realm of the
Astral Plane where many evil Souls must spend time. <snip> After he
has met the Living ECK Master he will never have to reincarnate on
this plane nor in any of the underworld planes."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 146
"If a chela decides to leave the Living ECK Master on his own without
first discussing it, then he has problems to face which are more
severe than ever. He has left the ECK Master and gone into the
wilderness alone to face the wild beasts which will devour him."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 172
QUESTION: DO ECK MASTERS REPRESENT THE ONLY WAY TO GOD?
[TECHNIQUE TWO - I HAVE THE ONLY PATH AND IF YOU LEAVE IT YOU WILL BE
IN TROUBLE. ]
"It is when the chela leaves the protection and guidance of the Living
ECK Master that Kal Niranjan will pounce upon him and start his
negative works."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 172
"There is no way to the SUGMAD except through the MahantA."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 29
"Only the Living ECK Master has the power to initiate souls and take
them to the regions of light."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 64
"Should the Soul not be an initiate of the Living ECK Master, It must
stand before Dharam Raya, the judge of the dead, and receive its just
reward."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 73
"It is not possible to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except through
the teachings of ECKANKAR."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 96
"The Eckist recognizes no other religion, although such exists in this
physical world. Nor does he recognize any metaphysical teaching,
occultism, or any worldly theological faiths, creeds, and cults, all
of which claim to be the way to God."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 98
"All others who claim they are the messengers, preachers, or the voice
of God do so for some materialistic motive."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 105
"[All other religions] are the offshoots of ECKANKAR, the original
source of all life."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 113
"The Living ECK Master embraces all humanity because he is the only
channel that can do so."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 16
"No one can reach God practicing any path except devotion to the
SUGMAD through the Mahanta."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 136
"He shall wander about the face of the earth life after life,
incarnation after incarnation, until that day when he shall meet with
the Living ECK Master."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 136
"The Living ECK Master is the only one who truly knows what Soul is."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 150
QUESTION: ARE YOUR STUDENTS FREE TO LEAVE ECKANKAR?
[TECHNIQUE THREE - I AM THE MASTER AND ONCE I HAVE INITIATED YOU, YOU
WILL BE WITH ME FOREVER.]
"At no time does the Mahanta ever leave one who has become his charge,
regardless of whether or not the chela tries to break his ties."
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 65
"Those who need the Living ECK Master will always stay with him, but
those who feel that they are beyond this are wrong in their thinking.
They have not examined the truth, and will go afoul of the illusions
established by the Kal"
-The Shariyat Ki Sugmad, book 1, by Twitchell, page 170
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PAUL TWITCHELL'S CONFLICTING MESSAGES:
In the first passage, PT speaks of fear methods. In the following
passage, PT proceeds to use the very fear methods he denounced:
"The oldest technique of keeping the loyalty of the chela by many
teachers is with fear. This is true in the methods of those teachers
on the lower plane levels. Because they grow afraid of losing their
chelas to a Master on the higher level, the old fear tactics will be
drummed into those who desire to move away from the psychic plane
elements into the God planes. These threats are very common. They
usually go like this: "If you leave me, you will get caught in the
astral and won't get out." Another clichรฉ is: "I've got the only path
and if you leave it, you're in deep trouble." Another one is: "I'm the
true Master, and having initiated you, will be with you until the end
of eternity. I'm your Master always." These are a few of the
techniques of fear used by most teachers of the psychic worlds. We can
easily recognize them.
"The very fact that they use such methods to hold their students
shows they are afraid of losing out to a true Master. The real Master
never drops any hints of reprisal to anyone who shows freedom of will
and the capability of thinking for himself. He never at any time says
anything to the chela unless asked."
-Paul Twitchell, The Illuminated Way Letters, March 1968, published in
The Illuminated Way Letters, 1966-1971, copyright 1975 Gail Twitchell
Gross
[In PT's next quote, he proceeds to use the very fear methods he
scorned in the previous passage]:
"As the instrument for this greatest spiritual power within all
universes, we must take hold of the basic idea that we are the chosen
people. This makes us different from all the others in this world, and
we must look upon ourselves as heirs to the keys to heaven. We are the
kings and queens of the earthly realm, appointed by the divine SUGMAD
to take our places here as ITS representatives. We are to act as Godly
instruments through which the ECK flows to the world and uplifts
humanity.
"By divine right we have become the chosen people. And, because we
have accepted the responsibility of carrying out the will of god, it
is necessary that that we have the faith and knowledge of being the
people of God. Those who do not belong in the spiritual works of ECK
have either rejected this path or do not know of it. They will have to
wait until the time is ready for each to accept the Mahanta, the
Living ECK Master.
"These people are in a sort of limbo, whether it is in the past or
modern times. They will go through lifetime after lifetime wondering
why they must suffer, for the Angel of Death does not listen to their
cries for mercy but places them back into another life, to pay for
their karma."
"By the Eck alone the chela can transcend all the lower regions and
rise into the heavenly world of the Sugmad. Without the Mahanta, the
Living Eck Master, no one can attain conscious union with the stream
of pure life, nor can he go further than the first region of light,
which is the astral."
-Paul Twitchell, The Spiritual Notebook
TIAN YUE RESPONDS:
So, Twitchell knew all along exactly what he was doing with the
threats he, himself, made to those who would leave eckankar. It was
deliberate, and it was deceptive. He says in the first quote how a
master goes about trapping a chela through fear, then he uses the same
fear tactic himself. Note that one of his examples of a fear tactic is
to threaten existence no higher than the astral plane, which is
exactly what he states will be the fate of those who do not follow the
Mahanta, the Living Eck Master.
Let's consider a few things. In the first excerpt Twitchell writes in
his monthly letter to the membership about masters using fear tactics
to trap chelas. He encourages chelas to beware of sly, lowly teachers
who want to draw them away from a supposedly higher master, presumably
himself, considering the overall context. He made various comments
similar to this in other writings, too, which indicates he was
concerned with keeping his chelas from leaving him to follow other
masters.
In the second excerpt from the Spiritual Notebook, he includes
warnings of what will befall those who reject eckankar. The warnings
are structured identically to the fear tactics he earlier described.
In both instances, the statements were designed to keep his chelas
from wandering from eckankar. In the first instance, he warns of the
dangers of lower masters using fear tactics to draw away and hold the
gullible, unthinking chela. In the second instance, he uses the same
fear tactic himself to warn the unwary chela of the dangers of
rejecting eckankar. It should be obvious that both are examples of the
use of fear to hold chelas. To state this in another way, in one
instance he instills apprehension of fear tactics, and in the second
instance he reverses this by using fear tactics to create
apprehension. They are both the same, really.
If Twitchell's strategy was to create a maze of seemingly
contradictory fear tactics in a kind of rhetorical counterpoint to one
another, to set chelas off-guard as to what his true intentions were,
it has worked beautifully, as is illustrated in the two responses by
the chelas above. Their argument is, no authentic master would first
warn of other masters using fear tactics, and then brazenly use the
very same tactics! Yet it is precisely due to the fact that the
notoriously, unabashed Twitchell did exactly this, that the eckists
have been supplied by him with an argument to the contrary! His clever
designs to bind have worked.
The fact that Twitchell wrote of the fear tactics, to the point of
including several examples, proves that he was well aware of the
concept of their use, and the effects of their use in retaining a hold
on chelas. His warning also indicates he believed the tactics can
succeed in their intended purpose. So when he warns of the terrible
fate of chelas who go astray, we are to believe he wasn't aware that
this matched his very own definition of a fear tactic? We are to
believe that because he described fear tactics, it would make any use
of them himself, unlikely? It is far more likely this is exactly what
he hoped we would believe. Twitchell was quite clever with this. He
was attempting to build into his writings immunity to criticism. And,
as incredible as it would seem, the ploy has worked surprisingly well,
as can be seen in the chelas responses above.
Through this device of double-speak, he keeps his chelas in a state of
confusion, which eventually leads to the necessity of either setting
aside critical thinking of the master's writings in order to maintain
what is to the chela the extremely precious, indispensable master/
chela relationship, on which the chela has become dependent, or
breaking off the relationship, which may prove to be an extremely
difficult, if not impossible, choice for the chela.
However he learned of these insidious control methods, whether he
found them in other teachings he studied, such as Scientology, or
stumbled upon them by trial and error, there is no doubt, based on the
excerpts included here, that it was deliberate. That there are chelas
who believe otherwise merely serves to give evidence to the efficacy
of the methods.
Tian Yue
On Apr 1, 9:15 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
Rich
"Ken" <not...@all.com> wrote in message
news:LrQQh.6747$%G4.2013@trndny05...
> Rich wrote:
>> "Ken" <not...@all.com> wrote
>>>
>>> Well now, that's new stuff there. Or new to this group at
>>> any rate.
>>
>> http://heh.pl/&3ap
>>
>> My guess: The second answer can be found in the discourses.
>
>
> Heh! Nine eh? Not new material obviously,
When I saw it I would have bet that I had been posted it many times. When I
saw only nine I was surprised. Did a different search today.
http://heh.pl/&3ar 51 by me alone.
> but it's a new interview that I hadn't heard of before.
Yes. That's what really interested me. I'm wondering how much more there
was to that interview with Paul?
Doug? Do you have that "Talking To The Spirits" book?
What's also interesting is that he repeated almost word for word what he had
written in Key to Secret Worlds and a Soul Travel discourse, from memory,
with very little change.
Doug
> "Ken" <noth...@all.com> wrote in message
>
> news:LrQQh.6747$%G4.2013@trndny05...
>
> > Rich wrote:
> >> "Ken" <noth...@all.com> wrote
>
> >>> Well now, that's new stuff there. Or new to this group at
> >>> any rate.
>
> >>http://heh.pl/&3ap
>
> >> My guess: The second answer can be found in the discourses.
>
> > Heh! Nine eh? Not new material obviously,
>
> When I saw it I would have bet that I had been posted it many times. When I
>
> > but it's a new interview that I hadn't heard of before.
>
> Yes. That's what really interested me. I'm wondering how much more there
> was to that interview with Paul?
>
> Doug? Do you have that "Talking To The Spirits" book?
>
> What's also interesting is that he repeated almost word for word what he had
> written in Key to Secret Worlds and a Soul Travel discourse, from memory,
> with very little change.
> ` o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _/____|___\_
> Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Rich,
I'm away on a business trip, but yes, I have the book at home. I
bought it recently. There is a whole chapter there on Paul Twitchell.
It is mainly an interview where Paul talks about the ECK Vidya.
You can buy a used copy via the Internet bookstores for not much
money, if you check around.
Doug.
Doug
> In answer to Ken, Doug, et al,
>
> Here are the same the questions PT's interviewer posed, but with the
> answers given through out Paul Twitchell's books, in which we see a
> very different PT than the one talking to a reporter. PT was a public
> relations man, and he knew when it was in his interests to tone down
> his rhetoric. But when writing to the true believers, he let his real
> intentions become extraordinarily clear. The difference between off
> the cuff answers and those published is that the latter are statements
> PT had ample time to ponder and consider, and are much more definitive
> since he knew these would be his published words:
>
> Also included in my response is an example or PT's doublespeak, in
> which he gives out conflicting messages. His technique of creating
> cognitive dissonance in his students with conflicting messages does
> work quite well to keep students on the path. His interview answers
> which he gave to the two questions reveal a person willing to say
> whatever was necessary to keep peaple off balance and confused.
> Several more examples follow at the end of my response.
>
> QUESTION: Would you declare that Eckankar offers the only path to God?
>
> "Since everything in this physical universe is controlled by Kal
> Niranjan (the negative power), we have nothing that can say it
> represents the ultimate in the perfect sense, except ECKANKAR (sic)."
Tian Yue,
I'm sure that this seems to you as if you are offering other, more
negative quotes, from Paul, to show what else he may have said. But I
find the way you did this kind of weird. I mean, if Paul gives his own
answer to a question, why do you think you should be putting a
different answer into his mouth and make it sound as if this is the
way he would have answered the question?
When I look at this, it doesn't look like Paul's answer at all, but
only shows how much of the time you spend trying to put your
interpretations and explanations out as if they belong to Paul or
Harold or others, when in fact they are really reflecting the way you
want to see them.
Here we have a case of Paul answering a real question, but you choose
to replace his answer with some other quote as if that was his answer,
when it wasn't.
Besides that, I take ECKANKAR in his quote to mean exatcly what he
said it meant - to be the inner teachings behind all religions - the
true essence. In other words, what this quote above means to me is
that any teaching that is focused on the outer forms belong to the
negative worlds, and only the inner essence represents the Ultimate
Truth.
While I can certainly see how you could interpret Paul's words to
suggest that only ECKANKAR is the path to God, that interpretation
doesn't make sense in respect with what he says everywhere else about
ECK and truth. His real answer, that he is aware there are many paths
to God, is a perfect example. Paul had a chance to answer exactly the
question you have been posing and he answered it the way he did, not
the way you would like to think that he did.
Another thing that seems strange to me is that as long as you spend
your effort trying to put your interpretations onto Paul for what you
think he was saying, you are focusing on Paul as if he is the source
of this interpretation, when it is really coming from you. I don't
object to your point of view. We each have our own ways of seeing
these things. But it seems to me to make a lot more sense if we simply
recognize that these interpretations come from us. I accept my way of
seeing it as coming from my own understanding.
I find dialogue that comes from our own personal understanding much
more rewarding than people preaching something that they heard or were
taught but doesn't come from their own experience. Those are the
things I learn the most from.
I really don't see much value in haggling over who's interpretation is
right, because they really are all right for the person they belong
to. They just don't belong to Paul. They belong to you and me and all
the others offering our viewpoints. So why not talk from what we
believe? Why so much talk about what we think someone else meant?
It just seems a little weird to me to have these discussions about
what we believe while trying to pretend they are really what someone
else said or meant. It is kind of like using sock puppets and
pretending they are doing the talking, when we are.
Doug.
> "The oldest technique ...
>
> read more ยป
Tian Yue
I must emphatically state, Doug, that I certainly did NOT put words in
PT's mouth. Quite the contrary, I quoted his very words that were
deliberately written by his own pen, and published by him.
And as I already stated, to repeat, his written words that he felt so
sure about that he actually published them are obviously far more
important and deliberate than off the cuff comments to an interviewer.
His words to the interviewer may have been a matter of softenng his
tone for public consumption, whereas his published words were
calculated and deliberate, intended for the true believers. It makes
perfect sense that this is the case. He had ample time to stop the
presses if he didn't like what he had written.
>
> When I look at this, it doesn't look like Paul's answer at all, but
> only shows how much of the time you spend trying to put your
> interpretations and explanations out as if they belong to Paul or
> Harold or others, when in fact they are really reflecting the way you
> want to see them.
The answers are directly from PT's own books, and, to point out the
obvious, if he hadn't intended to write those words in so many
different passages, certainly he wouldn't have insisted that those
words be published for all the world to see. There are so many similar
statements that to deny he meant them is, well, quite strange, to be
polite about it.
>
> Here we have a case of Paul answering a real question, but you choose
> to replace his answer with some other quote as if that was his answer,
> when it wasn't.
He made those statements over and over again. I know it is unpleasant
to face, but it can't be denied.
>
> Besides that, I take ECKANKAR in his quote to mean exatcly what he
> said it meant - to be the inner teachings behind all religions - the
> true essence. In other words, what this quote above means to me is
> that any teaching that is focused on the outer forms belong to the
> negative worlds, and only the inner essence represents the Ultimate
> Truth.
And yet, he did make those negative statments in so many different
instances that it simply can't be disputed. PT speaks for PT. You
can't change that. It's in print, in books he wanted published. He
obviously meant those things he stated, or he wouldn't have published
them in his books. I can certainly understand why you'd like to sweep
these statements away somehow, but sadly, they're in print by his own
hand. He meant them to be read. Odd that if he was so omniscient, he'd
have not known what trouble this would all cause him.
>
> While I can certainly see how you could interpret Paul's words to
> suggest that only ECKANKAR is the path to God, that interpretation
> doesn't make sense in respect with what he says everywhere else about
> ECK and truth. His real answer, that he is aware there are many paths
> to God, is a perfect example. Paul had a chance to answer exactly the
> question you have been posing and he answered it the way he did, not
> the way you would like to think that he did.
It isn't necessary to interpret PT statements, since he made so many
similar statements he's left no doubt as to their meaning.
>
> Another thing that seems strange to me is that as long as you spend
> your effort trying to put your interpretations onto Paul for what you
> think he was saying, you are focusing on Paul as if he is the source
> of this interpretation, when it is really coming from you. I don't
> object to your point of view. We each have our own ways of seeing
> these things. But it seems to me to make a lot more sense if we simply
> recognize that these interpretations come from us. I accept my way of
> seeing it as coming from my own understanding.
>
I think anyone reading here is capable of reading these words, and
understanding that with so many similar statements by PT, he meant
them to mean exactly what they obviously mean, without your
backpeddling away from them. Obviously you're horrified with the
statements yourself, considering how hard you're trying to sweep them
under the rug.
> I find dialogue that comes from our own personal understanding much
> more rewarding than people preaching something that they heard or were
> taught but doesn't come from their own experience. Those are the
> things I learn the most from.
This last statement of yours is a good example of sophistry. Who's
doing the preaching here? If PT so badly wanted those statements to
be read that he was determined to have them actually published in not
one, but several different publications, they obviously meant
something to him, if not to you. He wanted those words to be read.
Again, you seem to have appointed yourself as his chief apologist and
spokesperson, but PT spoke in abundance for himself, leaving no doubt
at all as to his meaning. That his words are so disturbing to you that
you want to deny them speaks volumes.
>
> I really don't see much value in haggling over who's interpretation is
> right, because they really are all right for the person they belong
> to. They just don't belong to Paul. They belong to you and me and all
> the others offering our viewpoints. So why not talk from what we
> believe? Why so much talk about what we think someone else meant?
>
Horespucky. One needs no interpreter to read PT's words in plain
English. PT wrote in prosaic form, and left no doubt at all as to his
meaning. He made those statements not once, but over and over again.
There is no mistaking his intent.
> It just seems a little weird to me to have these discussions about
> what we believe while trying to pretend they are really what someone
> else said or meant. It is kind of like using sock puppets and
> pretending they are doing the talking, when we are.
Again, your words here are an excellent example of sophistry. His
statements are not cryptic r enigmatic. They're quite clear. To
suggest otherwise makes you look as if you're running from the obvious
meaning. PT wrote these words, made sure they were published and
distributed to bookstores. He obviously didn't share your feelings
about those things he wrote, or he would not have written them in such
abundance. You seem to be conflicted about PT's views to such an
extent that you want to "interpret" them, as if he needs you to
explain them to others. It is as if you believe you are the only
person qualified to tell the rest of us what PT meant. Sorry, but as
I've pointed out on other occasions, I don't see you, as a "high
initiate," or in my case, as a former high initiate, as some 'high
beings' having a debate. To me, you're just another guy who thinks he
knows something.
Tian Yue
Rich
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:1175743855.1...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ken
> Doug wrote:
>>
>> Besides that, I take ECKANKAR in his quote to mean exatcly
>> what he said it meant - to be the inner teachings behind
>> all religions - the true essence. In other words, what this
>> quote above means to me is that any teaching that is
>> focused on the outer forms belong to the negative worlds,
>> and only the inner essence represents the Ultimate Truth.
>
>
> And yet, he did make those negative statments in so many
> different instances that it simply can't be disputed. PT
> speaks for PT. You can't change that. It's in print, in
> books he wanted published. He obviously meant those things
> he stated, or he wouldn't have published them in his books.
> I can certainly understand why you'd like to sweep these
> statements away somehow, but sadly, they're in print by his
> own hand. He meant them to be read. Odd that if he was so
> omniscient, he'd have not known what trouble this would all
> cause him.
So this is somehow causing Paul trouble?
Uhm, have you spoken to him lately?
It's interesting at any rate. Here you are thinking that your
misunderstanding would cause trouble for someone who passed
away close to 35 years ago. You really do give yourself
credit! :-)
--
Ken
Etznab
It [your post] came out right the first time. I give it four stars!
Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Five Stars *****
Tian Yue
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't be ridiculous. You can't be this dense. PT's pet project was
eckankar, and he obviously wanted it to succeed, and I'm sure he would
see it as his legacy. He caused himself problems by damaging his
project and his legacy.
Tian Yue
cher
Oh kent, how is it that you are the only one here allowed to be a
subject matter expert where Paul is concerned, when it's all
conjucture? Hmmmm? Ken is entitled to his opinion as much as you are!!
The only true balancer to this tug o' war is who's actually authentic
enough to own their own biases and feel comfortable! There's no
convincing a man whose mind is made up. <shrug> Fact of life. Learn
to accept your position for what it is, instead of trying to make it
into something it isn't!
Ken
Thanks, but apparently Kent won't deal with it.
I guess that means he must agree!
:-)
--
Ken
Ken
> project was eckankar, and he obviously wanted it to succeed,
> and I'm sure he would see it as his legacy. He caused
> himself problems by damaging his project and his legacy.
Heh! So, *I'm* the one who shouldn't be ridiculous?
You are way too comfortable talking about what someone else who
you don't even know wanted. Especially someone who's been gone
from this world for 35 years. Imagine someone saying such a
thing about you over three decades after you die.
But I'm sure it all makes sense in your world somehow.
--
Ken
Tian Yue
More than any other person posting here, you tend to repeat yourself.
This indicates you aren't giving even the slightest thought to what
you're responding to. This is your usual pattern.
You just have to be smarter than this. PT left a legacy of writings
that give us all more than enough infornation about what he thought.
Besides, I met Paul Twitchell, heard him speak, was in eckankar from
those early days. He spoke those words, and wrote those words, over
and over again. They have always been a part of eckankar doctrine.
That's why PT made sure they became published. Klemp has also made
such comments. If PT didn't want to be known for what he wrote in
abundance, he shouldn't have published those words. You folks all keep
reffering to self-resonsibility. What's the matter, Ken? These
principles don't apply to Twitchell?
Of course he meant those words, just as he wrote them. He's
responsible for them. He had them type set, had them printed, bound,
published, distributed, sold, and read, in not just one, but several
different books and discourses, and Illuminated Way Letters.
And now you want to pretend to yourself that he didn't mean it?
You poor fellow...
Tian Yue
Ken
I repeat myself because you behave as though you don't hear
very well. Or think very well for that matter.
--
Ken