Similarities Between Rebazar Tarzs & Kirpal Singh?
Etznab
he found on the inner planes into writing. He had
a very difficult time figuring out a way to present
Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of
his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or
1961. He said he had come across the teachings
through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as
1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar
Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were
difficult for him to bring out, because nobody
cared. [....]"
(Getting the ECK Message Out) by Harold Klemp
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
*********
Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according
to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul
Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied
"in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living
Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell?
During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with
Kirpal Singh and others.
What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?)
is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal
Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has
not been proven absolutely true.)
However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence"
with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With
The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country
(not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account
for even more confusion. Especially:
Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when
he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957.
The story of this trip has been recorded in my book
"The Tiger's Fang."
[The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
So what is this? Can somebody please explain how
Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even
by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
The following illustration appears to reference the
January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he
[Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first
time. It reads:
(begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation
under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad,
India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi.
Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is
called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to
leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also
among my writings are numerous discourses from
many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner
planes. I have talked with and taken down the words
of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his
Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body
was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
In the entire article, there is no reference what-
soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell
republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet,
Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation
and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he
mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs"
and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html]
Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to
Rebazar Tarzs?
It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared
in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about
Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh
took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds
and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
"Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal
Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the
writings of Paul Twitchell?
Can somebody elaborate?
Etznab
Rich
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174624232.7...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Lots of elaboration in the archives.
This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
http://heh.pl/&3a9 Start with chapter 5
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I've read most, if not all of that book:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
Including chapter Five.
I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the
possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh
to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact,
any people whose names were replaced with names
of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
Probably this happens because I had a tendency
to take what was given as the history of the Eck
Masters literally. Even when I was curious about
Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at
times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not
Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared,
some of what I have seen appears still to conflict
with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master
history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's
book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near
identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how
can it be both? How can they be the words of people
living in the physical, but two different people?
When I add to this the number of speeches
by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim
as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the
1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask
myself why?
I don't think that I am the only person to have
wondered about this, and I imagine that members
of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over
this, or for similar contradictions that were not
adequately explained to them.
Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master
or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he
may have worked with and/or known Harold
Klemp on some personal level, even though
he had access to early Eckankar documents
or transcripts that others have not seen, I do
believe it matters for a current member of the
path of Eckankar to hear commentary about
Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What
I mean is that some of the things Doug has
mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds
of things that I have ever heard Harold say.
Attributing the writings of other authors or
some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former
teachers with Eck Masters for example.
Even to the point of replacing their names.
But were the names replaced by historical
living people or historical myths, legends,
and/or fables of historically living people?
Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters
in The Spiritual Notebook and his names
of people who served as the "Mahanta
Consciousness" as people knew it through-
out history? Are these references all about
historically living people? Or were some of
the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness
equivalent to legend and myth?
Personally speaking, some of what Paul
Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not
unique or never mentioned before. Moreover,
some of those accounts of Earth history are
what cannot be proven any more than the
myths and the legends to which they pertain.
In other words, what is common knowledge
about the history of Earth and the Human
Race does not always equate with truth.
People once thought the Earth was flat and
only a few thousand years old. They thought
the planets revolved around the Earth instead
of around the Sun.
I can kinda see how and why this would
happen (changing names and quoting others -
even common knowledge and giving the source
as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard
Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar.
It's quite possible that he has and that I just
overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone
will remind me more about it?
It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let
the membership find out about some of the Eck
history for themselves because it is more fun
that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for
the people who leave Eckankar because of it,
or for those who remain mystified by what so
many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or
go there. IMO.
When people (some of which were members
and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path
or publicly portray the teaching as other than
what is commonly-accepted dogma, I think it
does reflect to some extent upon the current
members when people who know nothing about
Eckankar see some of what goes back and forth
between members and non-members. For some
people, I imagine that this is their impression of
the path and anybody who belongs to it.
Why do you imagine that members of Eckankar
for decades would leave the religion or path by this
name? IMO it can't be such a small reason. IMO
there could very well be something here worth
looking at - if even to better understand people and
their religious experience in general. Eckankar or
not.
People don't leave for no reason. Nor do they
write books that try to make sense of the con-
tradictions.
I wonder if we can't all learn something from
those who come and go from any particular
path. Is it always that something is "wrong"
with the people? Or has religious dogma and
its literal intrepretation ever been flat out wrong,
contradictory, and/or misleading at times in
recorded history? What can we learn from this
and how can it help people from different paths
better find common ground? Or what is true
for all religions?
Etznab
Rich
But I will tell you that I don't take things literally, as linear or as
black or white. I am content with paradox and contradictions. Those are
issues for lots of people. Others create different realities for themselves.
Those are their problems. I've got my own to work with. But Soul doesn't
have issues. I see it all from that perspective, as illusions in duality.
Reality is more slippery than the mind's imagination. Each to his own.
That's how I've sorted it out for my analytical mind anyway.
You have to sort it for yourself in your way too.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote
> "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote:
>> "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote>>
>>
Etznab
Just for the record, I did respond (at length) to this
thread (to Rich's response). However, as far as I
know right now, that message didn't post. In the
response I wrote about "sorting things out" etc.
Etznab
Unknown
<snip>
> Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to
>Rebazar Tarzs?
>
> It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared
>in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about
>Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh
>took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds
>and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
>
> "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal
>Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the
>writings of Paul Twitchell?
>
> Can somebody elaborate?
>
>Etznab
It is obvious to anyone who has done any research into this that Paul
wrote about some of his former gurus such Kirpal Singh in his earlier writings,
and then later began to systematically change these names in later writings to some of his
imaginary eck masters that he seems to have created as he began to formulate the basis for what
was to eventually become eckankar. Unfortunately for Paul, some of the older writings
were compared to the newer versions and the name changes were discovered.
Paul Twitchell was a former student of Kirpal Singh until Kirpal Singh expressed disapproval
over Paul's manuscript, The Tiger's Fang. Paul then later went on to form his own 'religion',
declaring himself an 'eck master' by the authority of his newly created line of eck
masters. one moment he is a student of scientology and Kirpal Singh, and he next he
is an exulted 'eck master'. That speaks for itself.
Rich
<@> wrote in message news:fe7d03lbno1r3p2sn...@4ax.com...
Yes, and rather that misrepresent what Kirpal disapproved of, he removed his
previous mentions of Kirpal's name, long after he had started Eckankar.
> Paul then later went on to form his own 'religion',
> declaring himself an 'eck master' by the authority of his newly created
> line of eck
> masters. one moment he is a student of scientology and Kirpal Singh, and
> he next he
> is an exulted 'eck master'. That speaks for itself.
It does. He finally found the right path for himself after a lifetime of
studying many others.
Ken
>
> I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the
> possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
>
> Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh
> to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact,
> any people whose names were replaced with names
> of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
>
> Probably this happens because I had a tendency
> to take what was given as the history of the Eck
> Masters literally. Even when I was curious about
> Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at
> times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not
> Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
>
> Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared,
> some of what I have seen appears still to conflict
> with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master
> history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's
> book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near
> identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how
> can it be both? How can they be the words of people
> living in the physical, but two different people?
So maybe Paul wrote down what he understood to be true, and in
the process used some of what he'd read elsewhere. That's
wrong from today's perspective using current standards of
scholarship but as near as I can tell Paul wasn't and didn't
want to be a scholar.
So what was it that he was driving at and what was his
motivation? If you take him at his word, he was all about
helping people find out for themselves what reality is, beneath
the facade of social awareness that most people operate within.
Knowing this, would it be so out of character for him to
demonstrate how some of the ideals and icons people are trained
to idolize are not what they are claimed? To help people learn
how, so to speak, discern the difference between fine marble
statuary and a cheap plaster imitation.
Many of the people here seem to still have that lesson to learn
and I've no doubt the Eck critics will contend that I'm one of
them :-)
"Fun"? Maybe necessary.
Learning can be fun but it can also be painful. Dropping the
ideas and ideals of social consciousness and group-think is
more the latter.
I wonder if a majority of Eckists actually approach this issue
like there's something "wrong" with people who decide to part
ways with Eckankar. I kind of doubt it but hey, maybe so. But
based on what former members write here, it seems to me that
most of them definitely believe that both Eckankar and current
members have something wrong with them.
Personally, my approach to the parting of ways is "fit". If a
teaching or group does not seem to match someone's personal
approach then perhaps it's better to find one that does. Of
course the seeming lack of fit might just be growing pains and
temporary. That's why sometimes it's better not to burn the
bridges crossed, just in case you might want to use them in the
future. But then again, there's no incentive like a burning
bridge to get one moving along. In the end the details always
do get sorted out.
--
Ken
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for sharing that message Ken. I found it very
insightful and pretty well written.
Etznab
Doug
It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the
information. I encourage you to keep digging.
I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths
> he found on the inner planes into writing. He had
> a very difficult time figuring out a way to present
> Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of
> his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or
> 1961. He said he had come across the teachings
> through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as
> 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar
> Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were
> difficult for him to bring out, because nobody
> cared. [....]"
>
> (Getting the ECK Message Out) by Harold Klemphttp://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
>
> *********
This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul
mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest
I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that
Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
>
> Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according
> to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul
> Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied
> "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
>
> I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living
> Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell?
> During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with
> Kirpal Singh and others.
Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say
this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what
would their criteria be?
By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression
you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly
you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to
see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar
Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from
someone else?
Just curious.
> What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?)
> is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal
> Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has
> not been proven absolutely true.)
Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like
Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met
Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing?
Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK
initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence"
> with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With
> The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country
> (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account
> for even more confusion. Especially:
>
> Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when
> he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957.
> The story of this trip has been recorded in my book
> "The Tiger's Fang."
>
> [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
>
> So what is this? Can somebody please explain how
> Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even
> by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions
Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that
same article:
<Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for
years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes
came about.
<
<He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to
strange lands I never believed possible.>
Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling
inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was
meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual
discovery.
Why would David Lane leave this out?
I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to
Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He
was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been
friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest
students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what
Paul was doing.
So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good,
while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways
and stopped mentioning his name.
That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
More below about this.
Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in
book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and
magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a
number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed
Kirpal's name.
Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't
be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly
opposed to what he was doing.
So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing
their own writings?
Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that
Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and
Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one.
This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support
it.
For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes
you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these
matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's
Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who
opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he
had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting
Kirpal.
In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh.
Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes
numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one
example.
Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all
this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher
who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He
even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his
Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared
> in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about
> Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh
> took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds
> and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and
those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once
you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters,
does this resolve this confusion?
In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of
masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine
it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like
Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions
Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar
Singh's names.
> "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal
> Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the
> writings of Paul Twitchell?
>
> Can somebody elaborate?
The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters
who visited Paul inwardly. They all visited him in his apartment. So,
they are all similar.
Hopefully these comments help.
Doug.
>
> Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looking for an exact date (the year would be fine) when
Sudar Singh translated from the physical.
Currently, I don't believe Paul Twitchell received the Rod
of Eck Power immediately after Sudar Singh translated.
The dates (from what I can guess) don't seem to match.
I imagine there must have been another to serve as Living
Eck Master before Paul. My natural guess would be the
one called Rebazar Tarzs.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not equating it with an Eck initiation. What seems
confusing (like I said) are the similiarities between
Rebazar and Kirpal. The one I mentioned about the
Tiger's Fang and Kirpal visiting Paul in his apartment.
Maybe it would first be better to establish who was
Living Eck Master at the time of Paul's initiation by
Kirpal in 1955 (if that be the case). Was it Sudar
Singh? Was Sudar Singh alive (thus, a LIVING Eck
Master, in 1955?)
It seems to matter to me if there was a L.E.M.
between Paul and Sudar Singh (whose name in
some places replaces Kirpal Singh).
Was Rebazar Tarzs L.E.M. in 1955? (whose
name in some places also replaces Kirpal Singh).
Does the confusion become more apparent now?
P.S. Hope I'm doing this right. Responding to each
of your questions by highlighting it first, and then
clicking reply.
I have no idea how this is going to turn out.
How the text will appear.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for sharing that viewpoint. I think it's a "fair"
assessment.
Etz...
Doug
I'm adding these thoughts in the spirit of dialogue. Hopefully they
help.
> >http://heh.pl/&3a9Start with chapter 5
I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this.
Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their
reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as
something that looked suspicious to them.
In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting
Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But
that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is
just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we
love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer
trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our
own inner beliefs.
I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is
true.
Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book,
Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual
account?
Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is
he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By
The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works,
but have taken The Far Country as something different.
So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar
work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that
somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction,
and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was
much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing
spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings.
So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but
that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he
could.
In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there"
book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to
what it was really like.
Why does it make a difference to you if Harold said it or not? Are you
interested in the truth? If you are, what difference does it make who
says it?
Another question I have: What sort of truth are you looking for? Are
you looking for facts from historical records, or are you looking for
spiritual truth? Can you see how different these two are? Or do you
think the two are the same?
Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write
about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the
later, wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why
worry if his facts are not exactly right?
Let me put this another way. If someone writes a cookbook, don't you
think the proof is in the cooking? Why analyze it as if it were a
history book, or a physics book? If the author mistates a principle of
physics, should we reject the recipes?
I think that a lot of confusion has been created because some people
have treated facts as if they were the same as spiritual truth. Paul
made it perfectly clear that they are completely different. It was not
facts he was interested in, and he often treated facts lightly,
perhaps you might even say carelessly, since they were not what he was
interested in. He was never fooled into thinking that you could find
spiritual truth in facts.
At times it seems as if you just want to be clear about the facts. But
then at other times you wonder if it is just all myths. Well, if you
only divide things into to categories - facts or myths - then I guess
all of religion will fall into the category of myth. So, if it is all
myth, then why would you care about tracking down the facts? I don't
follow this.
Personally, it doesn't break down into facts versus myths to me. That
is just a myth and a way of positioning things that distorts truth.
We are dealing with issues of consciousness here, not laws of physics.
The field of spiritual truth is something that arises deep within our
hearts. It does not follow logic, nor can the mind always comprehend
what is most important to Soul. Facts are of no use here.
This doesn't mean that we should ignore facts or that they don't tell
us something. But only that they tell us very little about the kind of
truth that moves our hearts.
> Personally speaking, some of what Paul
> Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not
> unique or never mentioned before. Moreover,
> some of those accounts of Earth history are
> what cannot be proven any more than the
> myths and the legends to which they pertain.
> In other words, what is common knowledge
> about the history of Earth and the Human
> Race does not always equate with truth.
> People once thought the Earth was flat and
> only a few thousand years old. They thought
> the planets revolved around the Earth instead
> of around the Sun.
And physicists imagine that they know a Big Bang created the physical
world, but this too is just another myth based upon what little they
know. Will they one day discover some new piece of information that
shows them what they thought was all wrong? If so, does this suggest
they were wrong to think as they do now?
Here is another question: What is the purpose of myth? Can it be used
to carry wisdom and truth? Does it need to be factually true if it is
a form of art? Should art forms be judged by whether they are myths or
facts?
Is not all of religion really just a form of art - an art that
attempts to move Soul, our inner being, into heightened states of
consciousness where we can see Life in a new way and understand
ourselves and who we are?
Is this a place for facts?
> I can kinda see how and why this would
> happen (changing names and quoting others -
> even common knowledge and giving the source
> as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard
> Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar.
> It's quite possible that he has and that I just
> overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone
> will remind me more about it?
>
> It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let
> the membership find out about some of the Eck
> history for themselves because it is more fun
> that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for
> the people who leave Eckankar because of it,
> or for those who remain mystified by what so
> many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or
> go there. IMO.
I think you are overlooking how significant the shift must be for
people to understand the inner path. If they need the solidity of
facts to support them, then this means they need something outside of
themselves to lean upon. They have not yet found spiritual truth.
You want to make it easier for people. Make it more stable, more
solid. But this only makes it harder for them to see the inner reality
as it is.
Paul delibrately chose to teach about spiritual truth in a way that
jostles the mind. He knew very well that many could not stomach what
he was teaching. I don't think he expected what he wrote would be
understood by most people. I think he was in fact interested in those
who did know what he was talking about and were adventurous enough to
leave behind the need for outer authorities and outer forms of truth.
> When people (some of which were members
> and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path
> or publicly portray the teaching as other than
> what is commonly-accepted dogma, I think it
> does reflect to some extent upon the current
> members when people who know nothing about
> Eckankar see some of what goes back and forth
> between members and non-members. For some
> people, I imagine that this is their impression of
> the path and anybody who belongs to it.
I've always seen people on the path of ECK who decide the path by how
others see it. I don't understand this and have a hard time relating
to this.
Are they interested in the truth of the path, or just want to join a
popular club?
I find this who subject actually quite interesting, because it is
filled with so many spiritual lessons. But I think you will miss the
magic of it all if you try to bring it back to a discussion of facts
and myths.
Look at your own life, as an example. How much of your own life can be
reduced down to facts and myths? Is that really that useful? Does that
come close to capturing the whole of who you are?
Are you using the right tools?
> Why do you imagine that members of Eckankar
> for decades would leave the religion or path by this
> name? IMO it can't be such a small reason. IMO
> there could very well be something here worth
> looking at - if even to better understand people and
> their religious experience in general. Eckankar or
> not.
There are lots of reasons. There are just as many reasons for why they
became members in the first place.
> People don't leave for no reason. Nor do they
> write books that try to make sense of the con-
> tradictions.
I'm not sure there is much to be gained by making generalities here.
Each person's path is a unique story.
There is a lot here that is affected by changing beliefs in our
culture and changes that take place as people grow and get older.
But to really dig into these takes time. Quick generalizations won't
accomplish much, and they are rarely reflective of the complex and
fascinating truth.
> I wonder if we can't all learn something from
> those who come and go from any particular
> path. Is it always that something is "wrong"
> with the people? Or has religious dogma and
> its literal intrepretation ever been flat out wrong,
> contradictory, and/or misleading at times in
> recorded history? What can we learn from this
> and how can it help people from different paths
> better find common ground? Or what is true
> for all religions?
I've enjoyed speaking with those who leave, and I have learned a lot
from them.
I agree with you, that these are worthwhile discussions.
But ultimately, these are things we each need to decide within
ourselves, and the answers we get will largely depend upon what we
mean by truth. If we think spiritual truth can be judged by outer
criteria, then we are going to find the path of ECK like a bucking
bronco, that keeps shaking us up.
Maybe it is time to try a different approach?
Doug.
>
> Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It makes a difference what the person who said it
claims to be. If they claim to be God incarnate with
the power to decide who is or who is not Self and/or
God Realizied. If they claim to know all about human
history and practically every other thing that you could
think of as if they were the highest authority on all of
what matters - being the one and only channel for God
on Earth!
This is why it matters. We don't go around giving
people in the world this much power. Not even the
president has this kind of power.
It is not that I don't trust Paul or Harold. I simply
like to know fiction from non-fiction. Not everybody
interprets Eckankar and the teachings in the same
way.
I personally don't think it is all fiction. I don't think
it is all non-fiction. But are these the definitions for
Non-Eckists and Eckists generally?
Not expecting answers to any of the questions in
this response.
Etznab
Unknown
>On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Etznab,
>> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?)
>> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal
>> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has
>> > not been proven absolutely true.)
>>
>> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like
>> Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met
>> Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
Here is an excerpt from a letter written by one of Kirpal Singh's followers
in 1955 when Kirpal Singh was touring the USA. A 'Paul Twitchell' is mentioned
in this letter as being a new initiate of Kirpal Singh.
" 27th Sept. Left Washington by Eastern Air Lines at 7:15 a.m. Nearly all initiates in Washington came to see Him
off. Seeing their tears Master in all seeming innocence says "This is a pathetic scene." What else could it be? He had,
as if cut their hearts out with a blunt knife and was taking their hearts away with Him. The pain of the separation and
the bewildering emptiness awaiting them after His departure was ‘pathetic’. Landed at Boston Airport at 1:30 p.m. where
Baron Frary von Blomberg and Mrs. Hickie were waiting to receive Him. The Baron took the Master in car and the rest of
the party followed in another car to Brunswick Hotel where a suite of rooms were taken for the Master and separate rooms
for the party. A Paul Twitchell and Annie Trussel, new initiates, had accompanied the Master from Washington. ... "
See http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/tours/55/SS55_11.htm for the complete letter.
<@0O0@>
wernertrp
Has Twitchell joined scientology before or after joining
ruhanisatsangusa ?
The new way of american life.
Shopping the supermarkets of religions.
HK-I Ladendieb
Doug
Etznab,
I agree with you that there is no reason to give such power to
anyone.
If a spiritual teacher has any power it should be based upon inner
authority. It therefore comes from God, and they are just the vehicle
for it.
What confuses me still about what you are saying, is that you don't
think anyone should be given such power, but then you turn around and
say that it matters who says something, because of who they say they
are. So, this sounds like you are giving them power, which you said
you didn't believe in.
To me it is all much simpler when you just focus on what is Truth.
That is what matters. Not who said it, or who said what about what
someone else said.
Still, I've enjoyed your questions and the dialogue.
Doug.
Doug
Etznab,
I've heard others suggest the same thing.
It makes sense. And I think there are ways to find out the truth to
this, inwardly. But I don't know of any outer means of verifying it or
proving it out.
That's why I asked what you were looking for. If you are looking for
whether others have said this same thing about Rebazar Tarzs filling
in between Sudar Singh and Paul, yes I've heard this a number of times
before.
Doug.
Doug
Thanks for posting this. It is nice to see some confirmation about
this.
Doug.
Doug
Etznab,
The similarities about Kirpal visiting Paul in his apartment are not
surprising, since as Paul said he had many such visits by many
masters. He also said this same thing about Rebazar Tarzs around that
same period of time.
I wish we could see the original Tiger's Fang to see what Paul
actually said there. Does he just mention Kirpal's name in a couple
places, or is it everywhere that Rebazar's name is now? We don't know,
and I haven't heard of anyone who has seen the original manuscript.
But while these things are interesting, I don't think they are the
real issue. What you are getting at is the question of whether Paul's
teaching derives from Kirpal and whether it was Kirpal's initiation
that opened the teachings up for Paul that he later called Eckankar.
I've updated my book on this subject and it is now at the printer. It
should be available in about a month. I have gathered a lot more
information that I think will paint a clearer picture.
I've included a lot more of what Paul wrote in the early sixties
before he started Eckankar, and I've included a lot more about Paul's
early life. I think when you look at all the information you will see
how small a part that Kirpal really played, and how little Paul's
teaching resembles Kirpal's teaching.
There are certainly similarities. In fact, there are plenty of
similarities between Sufism and Sant Mat. But the differences are far
greater and they are dramatic. Not only in outward form, but also in
the inner connections and results.
What I think you should consider a little more if you are trying to
deal with these doubts and questions is who and why were these rumors
started in the first place? I try to track these things back in my
book and it seems to have derived from some misunderstandings and
misperceptions.
You are struggling with questions that have been created by others,
not because of what actually happened, but based upon what they
thought happened. However, the facts don't line up with their
perceptions. They have been telling people for decades a story that
unfortunately doesn't line up with the truth.
When I look at the details, I find it easy enough to understand why
people got the wrong idea. I don't think it was intentional on
anyone's part. And many feel very strongly about their convictions, so
it makes it difficult to discuss these things. That's why I try to
represent the many ways of seeing it, while focusing on the actual
facts and what they tell us.
So, I think it is important to look at the story that we've been told
so that we can put it aside and look more carefully at the facts
themselves, without the assumptions and conceptions that people have
tried to paint over everything. That's why I say it isn't important
who says it. Let's just look at what we really know and what does it
really tell us.
Doug.
Rich
<@> wrote in message news:lcme03h0nllh0dosu...@4ax.com...
I find it tells us something about Paul that he was new to the teaching, yet
was personally accompanying the Master.
It also seems the within the first year of study, Paul was living in the
compound with Swami Premananda.
With L Ron Hubbard it's be said that Paul was one of the fastest ever to
acheive the "clear" status. He quickly became one of the staff, was writing
for the newsletter, and even writing training stuff.
Tian Yue
Power?
"The Tao does nothing [i.e., uses no power], yet leaves nothing
undone."
>From the Taoteching, by Lao Tzu
Yet Paul Twitchell claimed the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master (he was
referring to himself) to have enormous powers, beyond that of all
others. In fact, he claimed to have omipotence. Perhaps the Letters to
a Chela definition of the Mahanta would be good to repost on this
thread. In this excerpt, PT wasn't asking for permission to have power
over anyone, he was declaring it to be an accomplished fact.
All caps are as written by PT:
"The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, exceeds all the principles,
beliefs, and faith in Adepts and Saviors. He is responsible for all
those who are the faithful within the ECK (sic). At the same time, He
(sic) must overlook and see that those in the churches and various
faiths are also taken care of. He shoulders the worlds problems and
looks at the major disasters, earthquakes, wars and other problems of
mankind as part of His duty to work out the karmic conditions of the
human race. Not only does He become the upholder and the inspiration
to the human race on earth, but He also takes care of the spiritual
affairs of life on other planets and universes, that of the beings and
entities within the psychic worlds, and those souls fortunate to reach
the higher planes of god. His task is tremendous, and although He is
light-hearted at times and seemingly without thought of world
conditions, He is ever in the Atma Sarup (soul body) watching and
guarding those nearest His heart, and the populations of the various
worlds, planes and universes.
"Therefore, we find that the Mahanta is not only the world savior, but
that of the world of worlds, all planets, all psychic planes, and the
spiritual regions. He is the Savior of the Worlds of God. This is not
the physical man as you can see and talk with, but the spiritual body
which is the Atma Sarup (soul body), which is the spiritual body of
all the Worlds of God. In other words, He is the ECK Itself, and
because the ECK is the basis of all life, the spiritual essence which
flows out of the SUGMAD, the Ocean of Love and Mercy, He is IT (sic).
This is the spiritual body which is in all things and which is the
creative function of life. Therefore, we find the Mahanta in every
man, creature, plant and mineral, as well as in all other forms of
life. His physical body is the only representation of the channel
through which the ECK flows. "
Letter to a Chela, by Paul Twitchell
> If a spiritual teacher has any power it should be based upon inner
> authority. It therefore comes from God, and they are just the vehicle
> for it.
Why would a teacher need power? Power implies cause and effect, which
only exist in duality. Therefore, power is just another aspect of the
world of distinctions.
>
> What confuses me still about what you are saying, is that you don't
> think anyone should be given such power, but then you turn around and
> say that it matters who says something, because of who they say they
> are. So, this sounds like you are giving them power, which you said
> you didn't believe in.
>
Again, PT claimed to have the power, regardless of whether anyone
accepted him as having such power. It seems Etznab is questioning the
claims, and he's still working through the various statements. Maybe
ETznab is just trying to decide if he wants to accept PT's enormously
grandiose claims. PT claims what he claims, and his statements, as the
founder of eckankar, apply to all other masters who follow in his
footsteps. If one is a loyal, sincere follower of eckankar, the words
of the one and only founder of eckankar would, of course, matter. It
isn't "giving power," but rather an attempt to grapple with the
contradictions. If one accepts eckankar and eckankar masters, then one
naturally wants to accept the teachings as taught by those masters, or
at least understand them. Perhaps this is what Etznab is refferring
to.
I think you're turning his querries back on him as a form of
avoidance. He points out contraditions, and you try to make it seem as
if he invented the contradictions. Its the same familiar approach
eckists take in defending eckankar. Turn all doubts, criticisms, and
questions back on the questioner.
But is doesn't work. People are seeing through the facade.
Tian Yue
Etznab
Again, I think it matters who said what. If the person who said
it claims to be God. Even if they don't claim to be God, but if they
claim in one place to be "God" and in another place Not to be. In
my opinion it matters to the witness. To the reader or the listener
as if this is not just anybody who said it. Not if they believe who
said it was God.
Is there not a distinction here, or at least a different
designation?
Though I have tried to intend general meanings to some of the
words, I am not trying to mince them all into confetti. Nor do I
now imply that others are doing this either. Words are limited
compared to what they symbolize (IMO). Especially compared
with what they were not "exactly" intended to say.
Example:
For some people, if "God" says jump. They jump! It doesn't
matter if it was really God who said it or not. The belief can
matter. And it can make a big difference!
Know what I mean?
Etznab
Tian Yue
It is difficult for you, Doug, to comment accurately on why people
leave eckankar, since you are not one to have ever walked in their
shoes. Thus, it is no surprise you answer this as you have. The
oddities and contradictions in eckankar writings are often precisely
the reason people leave eckankar. When examined as a whole, the
glaringly obvious ploy becomes evident.
> In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting
> Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But
> that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is
> just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we
> love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer
> trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our
> own inner beliefs.
What amazing sophistry. Doug, there is a thing called objectivity, in
which one neither trusts nor distrusts, but just wants to know the
real truth. When people can open their eyes and see with a modicum of
objectivity, Paul Twitchell does appear to change from that of a high
guru to that of a conman. Of course, PT was always a conman, and what
is changing is the realization of that in the student's perpective.
>
> I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is
> true.
Indeed. One person's truth is another's opinion. There are no referees
who get to decide what is truth and what is mere opinion. I see your
statements as your opinions. You may see your views as being beyond
opinion. And that's your opinion, to state the obvious. So, we're back
to where we started, unless you think you are a referee for the rest
of us.
>
> Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book,
> Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual
> account?
>
Here's the beginning of the principle direction in Doug's post. Let's
see where he's going. Key theme: Poetry vs. fact.
> Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is
> he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
Key theme of this paragraph: Actuality vs. abstract teaching methods.
>
> I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By
> The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works,
> but have taken The Far Country as something different.
Next movement in Doug's direction: Doug begins with "Stranger by the
River" as a poetic work, then begins to apply the same description to
The Far Country, which was never described as a poetic work by PT.
Doug's key theme: The Far Country may be a poetic work, not factualy
based.
>
> So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar
> work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that
> somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction,
> and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
>
Now Doug posits that one should "realize that The Far Country is a
similar work of art" as "Stranger by the River." Yet, Paul Twitchell
did not desribe that work as such. This is ridiculous. There is no
evidence to support this assertion. Yet Doug phrases his opinion as if
it were fact. The key theme advances: The Far Country is poetry, and
not factually based.
> I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was
> much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing
> spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
> These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings.
> So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but
> that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he
> could.
>
Now Doug states outright what he was hinting at from the start: The
Far Country, in which PT describes his actual apartment, and describes
in detail actual visits from Rebazar, with actual speeches by Rebazar
to PT (which were plagiarized from the works of Julian Johnson), with
absolutely no disclosure that it should be taken as "art" or "poetry"
or "fiction" or as a "teaching method," is in Doug's mind really
"inner teachings." PT had to plagiarize Julian Johnson and make up
stories with Rebazar to teach 'inner teachings'? Funny teaching
method. This is an enormous stretch, and it defies PT's own actions
and statements. This is obviously wishful thinking by a fellow
determined to find any way, no matter how ludicrous, to explain away
the controversies. But Doug does not speak for PT.
> In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there"
> book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to
> what it was really like.
Now Doug comes right out and states as if it were fact that PT writes
in an "as if you were there" style. Yet, PT never disclosed that the
meetings with Rebazar were just fiction to make the reader feel as if
he/she was there. Doug is making up this rationale out of whole cloth.
PT, in fact, presents the material as if it were all actually true
occurances. He allows the reader to conclude it is real, and even
leads the reader to believe it was real.
Etznab's logic is over your head, Doug. As I see it, he is observing
objectively the actions of the various figures involved, and gleaning
insights by what they do and say, or what they don't do and say. That
Klemp hasn't confirmed some of the statements is revealing. Etznab is
doing something that is taboo in eckankar: Using objective reason, and
perhaps, balancing that with inner awareness.
> Another question I have: What sort of truth are you looking for? Are
> you looking for facts from historical records, or are you looking for
> spiritual spiritual truth? Can you see how different these two are? Or do you
> think the two are the same?
>
Doug returns to his main theme in this post: Facts vs. spiritual
truth. He proceeds to rephrase this same theme over and over for the
rest of his post. Facts may not be spiritual truth, but facts can be,
nonetheless, extremely helpful, and clarifying. And spiritual truth is
often found to be otherwise. A fact can be verified, spiritual truth
is always within the realm of the unprovable. Doug's spiritual truths
(as well as anyone else's) are only opinions, in my view. Doug wants
us to think there is some harm in using facts as a form of discovery.
Read on:
> Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write
> about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the
> later, wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why
> worry if his facts are not exactly right?
Once again is the assertion that PT never intended his "factual
accounts" to be factual. Yet Doug does not have any evidence to
support this claim, nor does he bother to offer any evidence. He
doesn't need facts to support his statments, since facts are, after
all, not spiritual truth. With such logic, Doug can invent any
rationale he wants, with no need for facts to get in the way. Its the
practiced authoritive tone Doug exudes that gives those still in
eckankar the sense he speaks from a factual basis. Yet he eschews
facts, and offers few to support his pronouncements.
>
> Let me put this another way. If someone writes a cookbook, don't you
> think the proof is in the cooking? Why analyze it as if it were a
> history book, or a physics book? If the author mistates a principle of
> physics, should we reject the recipes?
Now the Far Country is compared to a cookbook. Yet the Far Country was
never described by PT in such a manner. I was in Eckankar during PT's
time, and everyone in eckankar understood the book to be a factual
account of PT's actual experiences. Doug can not speak for PT, and
this is an attempt at revisionist history on the part of Doug. But
again, Doug neither offers nor deems to need any real facts to support
his revisions.
>
> I think that a lot of confusion has been created because some people
> have treated facts as if they were the same as spiritual truth. Paul
> made it perfectly clear that they are completely different. It was not
> facts he was interested in, and he often treated facts lightly,
> perhaps you might even say carelessly, since they were not what he was
> interested in. He was never fooled into thinking that you could find
> spiritual truth in facts.
Again Doug hammers on his key theme: Facts are not spiritual truth. In
other words, ignore the facts, and go for the truth. Yet facts are a
kind of truth. But Doug wants to make it apparent that those who place
importance on facts don't know truth. In this way, he subtley implies
that those who are influenced by the disturbing facts regarding PT are
failing spiritually. Facts are the enemy. Well, no doubt they are, to
Doug, since it is facts that reveal the unpleasant side of eckankar's
origins. Doug is left with only one defense, and that is to attack the
very concept of "facts."
>
> At times it seems as if you just want to be clear about the facts. But
> then at other times you wonder if it is just all myths. Well, if you
> only divide things into to categories - facts or myths - then I guess
> all of religion will fall into the category of myth. So, if it is all
> myth, then why would you care about tracking down the facts? I don't
> follow this.
>
This is black and white thinking in Doug's part. Some things are
facts, some things are myths, and some things are lies. He wants to
blurr the edges of all these, until the reader is confused, and
reverts back to Doug's "spiritual truth" which is nicely devoid of
facts.
As he wrote above, "why would you care about tracking down the facts?"
A wonderful saying I heard once goes like this: Sometimes, if you just
listen to what a person is really saying, when they are trying to lie
or be indirect or discreet, they are telling you everything they
really think. Doug has revealed his real intent, if one simply reads
his words just as they are.
> Personally, it doesn't break down into facts versus myths to me. That
> is just a myth and a way of positioning things that distorts truth.
>
> We are dealing with issues of consciousness here, not laws of physics.
> The field of spiritual truth is something that arises deep within our
> hearts. It does not follow logic, nor can the mind always comprehend
> what is most important to Soul. Facts are of no use here.
Doug now writes, "Facts are of no use here." Nonsense. Facts are
often of enourmous use. Doug tries to create a false paradigm, that
one can't both employ facts to good use, while simultaneously being
aware of spiritual truth. He is clearly stating that facts are in
conflict with truth. This is, again, a kind of strawman argument.
Facts are useful for what facts do: they provide information and
evidence by which we may make decisions about our lives. People get
more facts about an automobile than they do about spiritual teachings.
Transcendent spiritual truth is different from the world of facts. Yet
these need not be in conflict. One can, and should, take into
consideration both the facts that can be learned, and also try to see
the more transcendent truth. Often these two approaches work
surprisingly well together.
>
> This doesn't mean that we should ignore facts or that they don't tell
> us something. But only that they tell us very little about the kind of
> truth that moves our hearts.
And yet, in nearly every sentence from the beginning of Doug's post,
we see his relentless denigration of facts, over and over again,
rephrased into different words, but all with the same message: Ignore
the disturbing facts about eckankar. They not useful.
>
> > Personally speaking, some of what Paul
> > Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not
> > unique or never mentioned before. Moreover,
> > some of those accounts of Earth history are
> > what cannot be proven any more than the
> > myths and the legends to which they pertain.
> > In other words, what is common knowledge
> > about the history of Earth and the Human
> > Race does not always equate with truth.
> > People once thought the Earth was flat and
> > only a few thousand years old. They thought
> > the planets revolved around the Earth instead
> > of around the Sun.
>
> And physicists imagine that they know a Big Bang created the physical
> world, but this too is just another myth based upon what little they
> know. Will they one day discover some new piece of information that
> shows them what they thought was all wrong? If so, does this suggest
> they were wrong to think as they do now?
>
Actually, physicists say the big bang theory is just that: A probable
theory, or hypothesis. So once again we see a faulty comparison. Doug
is trying to say that even facts are unreliable, as if that will
convince eckists who are investigating eckankar's history to ignore
the facts, since facts are, in Doug's mind, not to be trusted. What
Doug really doesn't trust are the people who are interpreting the
facts. Doug wrote an e-book using his own idea of facts in a feeble
attempt to disprove Lane's book. So it seems when facts work in his
favor, they're okay, but when they don't, they shouldn't be trusted. I
submit it is the eckists who question that Doug doesn't trust with the
facts. Why else write an e-book to influence the interpretation of the
facts?
> Here is another question: What is the purpose of myth? Can it be used
> to carry wisdom and truth? Does it need to be factually true if it is
> a form of art? Should art forms be judged by whether they are myths or
> facts?
>
Here is the next theme: Myth can carry truth. So, does this mean Doug
thinks PT deliberately created a myth that Rebazar appeared in his
room spewing words from Julian Johnson's book? Just what is Doug
trying to say here? Again, there is the blurring of the edges. Lies =
myth, and myth = art, and art may = truth, thus lies may = truth. Nice
equation.
> Is not all of religion really just a form of art - an art that
> attempts to move Soul, our inner being, into heightened states of
> consciousness where we can see Life in a new way and understand
> ourselves and who we are?
Religion may be part lies, part art, part myth, part sham, part real,
and part opportunistic, all under one roof. But eckankar claimed to be
better than the the rest. It claimed to be the real truth. And the
facts, unfortunatetly, reveal otherwise. That is the value of
discovering facts. It can help us know which is just run of the mill,
and which truly is exalted. Notice I said they can help us. I didn't
say facts are the only means to provide such help. But they definitely
are one of the most important means. Facts, in the hands of the
astute, aware person, can be enormously useful. Why else does anyone
think facts are being denigrated to this extent by Doug? He maligns
the usefulness of facts because the facts threaten everything eckankar
claims. Notice he doesn't say here that facts are wrong, just that
they aren't spiritual truth. Well, spiritual truth isn't served well
by lies. A barrel full of lies does not equate spiritual truth.
>
> Is this a place for facts?
>
Still pounding home his theme, in sentence after sentence. Okay, we
get it, Doug. You want us to put the facts on the back burner, maybe
even forget them.
> > I can kinda see how and why this would
> > happen (changing names and quoting others -
> > even common knowledge and giving the source
> > as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard
> > Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar.
> > It's quite possible that he has and that I just
> > overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone
> > will remind me more about it?
>
> > It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let
> > the membership find out about some of the Eck
> > history for themselves because it is more fun
> > that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for
> > the people who leave Eckankar because of it,
> > or for those who remain mystified by what so
> > many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or
> > go there. IMO.
>
> I think you are overlooking how significant the shift must be for
> people to understand the inner path. If they need the solidity of
> facts to support them, then this means they need something outside of
> themselves to lean upon. They have not yet found spiritual truth.
>
In other words, ignore the facts. He never gives up. This entire post
could be reduced to one or two sentences: Placing importance on facts,
especially those about eckankar's controversial history, are a step
away from truth. People who are interested in such facts aren't
spiritual.
> You want to make it easier for people. Make it more stable, more
> solid. But this only makes it harder for them to see the inner reality
> as it is.
>
Again, he tries to imply facts cannot coexist with spiritual truth
without creating conflict. So, a scientist can't be spiritual? This is
exactly what fundamentalists teach.
Facts serve a different purpose than spiritual truths, and thus, are
not in conflict with spiritual truth. The person who confuses everyday
facts with spiritual truth may be dissapointed in the end, but that is
different than an absurd call for a complete disregard for facts.
Facts, when taken as they are, and for the purpose they serve, are
ignored only to our peril.
> Paul delibrately chose to teach about spiritual truth in a way that
> jostles the mind. He knew very well that many could not stomach what
> he was teaching. I don't think he expected what he wrote would be
> understood by most people. I think he was in fact interested in those
> who did know what he was talking about and were adventurous enough to
> leave behind the need for outer authorities and outer forms of truth.
>
So, his plagiarism was deliberately done to jostle our minds? His
invented histories which were presented as factual were just a test?
With this sort of justification, one can excuse anything. So, in
Doug's mind its all just a way for PT to get rid of the spiritually
bereft. This, of course, is another example of extreme denial. It is a
sweeping justification that laughs at all attempts at common sense and
basic reason. Doug is not about to let those facts get in his way,
even if he has to make up ridiculous rationales that defy the obvious.
Well, I'm out of time. I find it amazing just how repetitive Doug's
post is. In line after line, he assails facts in slight variations of
the theme throughout. A long post, with only one short summary
necessary: PT's lies are poetry. Poetry is art. Art is myth. Myth
carries truth. Therefore, PT's lies are truth. And facts? They're not
to be trusted. Facts equal distortions. Distortions equal lies. People
who believe in facts are not spiritually evolved. Scientists are not
spiritual.
Tian Yue
Doug
thread below, if you want.
Doug wrote to Etznab:
> > I agree with you that there is no reason to give such power to
> > anyone.
Tian Yue wrote:
>
> Power?
>
> "The Tao does nothing [i.e., uses no power], yet leaves nothing
> undone."
>
> >From the Taoteching, by Lao Tzu
Doug responds:
I notice that you focused on the doing nothing part, but did not
comment on the leaves nothing undone part. If you say that doing
nothing means uses no power, then the leaving nothing undone sounds
like powerful stuff to me.
Elsewhere you ran a quote from the teaching of the Tao Te Ching where
is says that True Power Looks Weak, or something like that. This means
that there is such a thing as True Power in Taoism.
All of this seems in line with what I was saying.
Tian Yue continued:
> Yet Paul Twitchell claimed the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master (he was
> referring to himself) to have enormous powers, beyond that of all
> others. In fact, he claimed to have omipotence. Perhaps the Letters to
> a Chela definition of the Mahanta would be good to repost on this
> thread. In this excerpt, PT wasn't asking for permission to have power
> over anyone, he was declaring it to be an accomplished fact.
Doug responds:
You are clearly representing your viewpoint here, not Paul's. So why
spend so much time trying to make it sound like this is what Paul
believed or was trying to say?
I can see that you could say that this is how it seems to you. That
would be valid. But that doesn't make it true for everyone. So, why
not simply express it as an interpretation, rather than as if you were
stating the one and only perspective?
One more thing here about your comment above: Why are you inserting
your opinion: <he was referring to himself> when that is not what he
said? If he didn't say it, why pretend that this is what he meant? In
fact, I think it is quite clear that he was referring to something far
beyond himself.
Tian Yue continued:
Doug responds:
I interpret this to mean that the Mahanta Consciousness is something
far beyond any human being, and yet is a part of every man, creature
and living thing.
A spiritual teacher is only a representation of that inner channel.
The power that flows through him is not from him, but a part of the
Mahanta Consciousness, which is universal and at the same time beyond
all beliefs and faiths.
That's how I read it and understand it. I don't see anywhere that Paul
is saying this is about himself.
Still, I don't see what this has to do with my comment that true
spiritual authority comes from within, and there is no need to give a
teacher power.
Doug originally wrote:
> > If a spiritual teacher has any power it should be based upon inner
> > authority. It therefore comes from God, and they are just the vehicle
> > for it.
Tian Yue wrote:
> Why would a teacher need power? Power implies cause and effect, which
> only exist in duality. Therefore, power is just another aspect of the
> world of distinctions.
Doug responds:
There are many meanings to the word, Power. I am referring to what
moves us in life. Does it come from outside of ourselves or from
within? Are we merely followers of a popular belief? Or are we
following the beat of our own inner drum?
When we speak of what we know, are we just repeating something we have
heard from others, or are we speaking from our own understanding? Is
our understanding based upon personal experience or just belief?
These are some of the things that determine the power we possess. If
we rely upon outer authority to tell us what is true, then we give
away our power. We do not trust in our own self, and thus weaken our
self.
Those who are afraid to do what they think it right, also fail in
trusting their own self. This weakens them.
On the other hand, just pretending that we know something doesn't make
it true. Just imagining that we are all spiritual beings may inspire
us, but it doesn't by itself gain us the higher states of
consciousness.
So, the kind of spiritual power I'm talking about is extremely
important on the spiritual path. This is not like the kind of power
you are talking about, which is the opposite of love. True Power, to
use the terms of the Tao Te Ching as you quoted, is needed to find
True Love.
Doug originally wrote to Etznab:
> > What confuses me still about what you are saying, is that you don't
> > think anyone should be given such power, but then you turn around and
> > say that it matters who says something, because of who they say they
> > are. So, this sounds like you are giving them power, which you said
> > you didn't believe in.
Tian Yue wrote:
> Again, PT claimed to have the power, regardless of whether anyone
> accepted him as having such power. It seems Etznab is questioning the
> claims, and he's still working through the various statements. Maybe
> ETznab is just trying to decide if he wants to accept PT's enormously
> grandiose claims. PT claims what he claims, and his statements, as the
> founder of eckankar, apply to all other masters who follow in his
> footsteps. If one is a loyal, sincere follower of eckankar, the words
> of the one and only founder of eckankar would, of course, matter. It
> isn't "giving power," but rather an attempt to grapple with the
> contradictions. If one accepts eckankar and eckankar masters, then one
> naturally wants to accept the teachings as taught by those masters, or
> at least understand them. Perhaps this is what Etznab is refferring
> to.
Doug responds:
You might be right. My point is that this is not the best approach to
take for the spiritual path. Eventually this approach leaves you at a
dead end.
The Masters might be offering us insights and words of wisdom, but
these are not things to be taken into ourselves and believed in as if
they were truth. Truth is something much subtler than words. The
teachings are simply to lead us to the inner connection where we can
receive the true teachings and discover true spiritual power. The
spiritual path is not about what you believe, but how you put
spiritual principles into practice and learn through personal
experience.
Paul made claims, but that doesn't mean we should accept them as
truth. What is more important is to simply hear what he is saying and
try to understand the spiritual currents he is writing about.
Sometimes we are able to connect to these currents by making claims.
Most people I have met should be making claims and affirmations far
more often as a practice of inner confidence. On the other hand,
however, sometimes we need to connect to Spirit by honestly stripping
away everything we believe or want to believe.
Paul used a wide range of approaches, because life in the moment
requires it, if we want to follow the subtle currents and see the
whole pattern of reality.
All that you are doing is trying to take literal interpretations of
what Paul wrote and act as if that was why Paul wrote it. In fact, he
has said over and over again not to take his writings literally.
But once again, I don't know why you are bringing in Paul's comments,
when I am writing from my own understanding when I say that we don't
need to give spiritual teachers any power, that their authority comes
from within. This is something I'm saying, and I don't particularly
care whether Paul ever said this or not.
Tian Yue continued:
> I think you're turning his querries back on him as a form of
> avoidance. He points out contraditions, and you try to make it seem as
> if he invented the contradictions. Its the same familiar approach
> eckists take in defending eckankar. Turn all doubts, criticisms, and
> questions back on the questioner.
>
> But is doesn't work. People are seeing through the facade.
Doug responds:
I am talking about a way of approaching the spiritual path and
spiritual teachers. I am suggesting that we do not need to approach it
from a position of weakness. We can approach what is commonly called
spiritual submission from a position of strength.
How do we do this? By not doing what we do because someone told us or
because others have said we should do it, but doing what we do because
inwardly we know this is the right thing for us to do. In other words
we do it consciously from our own decision and from our own
responsibility. It is our choice.
This is the way to see through facades.
The contradiction I am pointing out is that Etznab is saying on one
hand that he doesn't think we should give teachers power by holding
them up on high, but then says that he does think it is important if
the person who says it is someone who claims to be up on high. These
two things are at odds.
My point is hopefully helping make it clearer that this is going to
create a problem somewhere down the road, because he is fundamentally
at odds within himself, but that this is something within his power to
change. It is his own choice to do what he thinks is right, and
whatever he thinks this is the right thing to believe, then he should
believe that. But he should at least realize that he is believing it
not because anyone on high said so, but because he decided it was the
right thing for him to believe at this time.
When we believe whatever authorities tell us to believe, then we will
sooner or later find that we have beliefs within us that are
contradicting other beliefs we hold. This is because they are not our
beliefs. We need to first make our beliefs truly our own by
consciously deciding what we believe by our own choice. If we choose
to accept the advice of a teacher, this is fine, but we are doing so
because we believe it is the right thing to do. We need to consciously
recognize this and accept the responsibility. Otherwise, we are trying
to just go through the motions of being a good spiritual student, but
we are in fact not being a spiritual student at all. We are just
playing a game of follow the leader, which is not the spiritual path
of ECK contrary to what many seem to think.
The real spiritual path requires consciously making choices from
within ourselves and taking responsibility for them. In the process, a
lot of these outer contradictions seem insignificant, which is the way
they should look. Because they really are just reflections of the
beliefs we have adopted unconsciously.
Doug.
Tian Yue
of the topics can be better responded to that way. Also, I?m short on
time, so this way I can reply in more than one sitting. The first
reply will be about my comments about power, and your replies. Context
can be read below in the text, which I?ve e left as it is.
------------------------------- Doug wrote to Etznab: I agree with
you that there is no reason to give such power to anyone. Tian Yue
yet leaves nothing undone.? -From the Taoteching, by Lao Tzu Doug
responded: I notice that you focused on the doing nothing part, but
did not comment on the leaves nothing undone part. If you say that
doing nothing means uses no power, then the leaving nothing undone
sounds like powerful stuff to me. Elsewhere you ran a quote from
the teaching of the Tao Te Ching where is says that True Power Looks
Weak, or something like that. This means that there is such a thing
as True Power in Taoism. All of this seems in line with what I was
quote is an interesting one from the Daodejing, isn?t it? "The Tao
does nothing [i.e., uses no power], yet leaves nothing undone."
nothing it doesn?t do.? The other quote from the Daodejing which you
referred to from another of my posts is also interesting: ?True power
looks weak.? In thinking about your response, I was about to reply,
but first checked in other translations of the ancient work. I?d begun
to wonder what other translations might be, since in my ever growing
understanding of the Daodejing and the Zhuang Zi, I?d realized the
word power seems to be infrequently used. In fact, I have to thank you
for your response, since it prompted me to go check in other sources.
Daoism is illusive as presented in language form, and I have been
gradually probing its depths. As it is, I don?t think many people
truly understand Daoism, which is why so many scholars miss the point.
It is not very graspable by the linear minded. Anyway, as I thought
would be the case, other translations do not use the word power in
that particular phrase. One translation that is very literal does not
use the word power, but says rather, ?the highest virtue seems low.?
The word power is not used at all in the entrir passage, which
confirms to me what I?d suspected, that the translation I?d first
quoted is rather too interpretive, rather than literal. You see,
Daoism is not very big on the concept of power. The inscrutable Dao
does not use power as we think of it. The Dao would not need power.
This is a very esoteric observation. I am not surprised you didn?t
catch the meaning. And I mean no insult by this. Power is a
distinction from the world of distinction. It implies causation, and
its twin, effect. The Dao is beyond such dualities. Since all that
occurs (for lack of better words) in creation occurs as a completely
natural, effortless happening, much like fruit that grows on a tree
occurs without effort or power, or water that flows without effort, so
the Dao does nothing at all. What could it do? How could it act? Where
is its center, from which there could be a source of causation? It
doesn?t have a center, or a motivation, or a need to act or use power.
And by this effortlessness, nothing remains undone. Things happen as a
part of what is termed Ziran, or the nature of things that occur
because it is the nature of things to occur. Summer occurs when it is
ripe to occur. The tide occurs when it is time. While one can identify
individual forces, this is in a way, illusory. The ultimate cause is
nowhere to be seen. Cause and effect occur in a linear time frame. In
a world without such a time frame, there is no linear cause and
effect. There is, thus, no cause and effect, since cause and effect,
as one unity, disappear (and also, effect could just as well be the
source of the cause). They are married together, and are one, and
thus, don?t really exist in the Dao. So, power is not needed by the
Dao. It does not act upon itself. It can?t get in its own way. Thus
what could it use power upon? The Dao and that which is thought to be
creation are one. All things, in Daoism, occur naturally, with no
deliberate, separate act of causation. A God that acts would be a
personal god, like the Christian God that consciously goes about
acting, much like a human would act. Dao is not God. Dao neither acts,
nor refrains from acting. It is not power. Power is a concept from
dualistic worlds. That which occurs is so utterly natural that an act
of power is not part of this equisite unity. In the same manner, a
master, becoming like the Dao, would likewise have little use for
?power? as we are accustomed to viewing it. Well, that?s all I meant
by my comment. I was having a little fun with the old, worn usual
concepts bandied about. Does this clarify my comments? I?ll answer
your other comments at a later time. Tian Yue Tian Yue wrote: > On
Mar 25, 9:13 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote: > >
Etznab, I'll add a few more comments below. > > > > I'm adding these
thoughts in the spirit of dialogue. Hopefully they > > help. > > > >
On Mar 23, 3:17 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar
23, 2:57 am, "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Etznab"
<etz...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:
1174624232.7...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >
> "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > > > he found
on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > > > a very difficult
time figuring out a way to present > > > > > Eckankar to this society.
The earliest mention of > > > > > his use of the word Eckankar was
about 1960 or > > > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings
> > > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > > >
1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > > > Tarzs starting
in 1951. But the teachings were > > > > > difficult for him to bring
out, because nobody > > > > > cared. [....]" > > > > > > > (Getting
the ECK Message Out) by Harold Klemp > > > > >http://www.eckankar.org/
Sing's name changed to > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs? > > > > > > > It
looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > > > in Paul's
apartment and the same thing was said about > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs.
It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > > > took Paul Twitchell
through the several invisible worlds > > > > > and the same thing was
said about Rebazar Tarzs. > > > > > > > "Why the apparent
similarities between Kirpal > > > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even
according to the > > > > > writings of Paul Twitchell? > > > > > > >
Can somebody elaborate? > > > > > > Lots of elaboration in the
archives. > > > > > > This is one reasonable explanation backed up
with timelines. > > > > > >http://heh.pl/&3a9Startwith chapter 5 > > >
> > > ` o > > > > | > > > >
~/| > > > > _/ |\ > > > > / | \ > > >
> -/ | \ > > > > _/____|___\_ > > > >
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Yeah, I've read most, if
not all of that book: > > > > >http://www.littleknownpubs.com/
Doug
> I?m going to answer your replies, Doug, in separate posts, since some
> of the topics can be better responded to that way. Also, I?m short on
> time, so this way I can reply in more than one sitting. The first
> reply will be about my comments about power, and your replies. Context
> can be read below in the text, which I?ve e left as it is.
Doug wrote to Etznab:
In enjoyed this a lot, Tian Yue. Thanks for sharing this.
Yes, that helps me understand better what you meant.
It is really quite beautiful what you are describing. I can see why
you might think that what I was writing is coming from a position of
duality because of using the term and concept of power, but I think
things are not quite that simple.
For example, I sense a great insight into nature from what you
described. But it also leaves me with a strong sense of the
unconscious.
Yes, it is true that there really are no causes, that things happen
without force, especially when we look with spiritual eyes from the
outer view of reality. But none of this captures what is going on
within the intentions of conscious beings. It is really more a glimpse
into the world of nature, which is largely unconscious.
Do you see what I mean?
I think there is great value in becoming conscious of this way of the
Dao, as you are describing. I am not trying to put it down. But it
seems to me to be describing the way of Mind and the Universal Mind,
you might call it. That's where I find it taking me. I don't find it
leading me into the understanding of Soul, that can be a law unto
itself.
For example, Soul has the unique ability to extract itself from any
situation by simply deciding to. There is no trap that can hold it.
Nothing can harm it. Yet, sometimes what it needs to do is assert its
own inner authority and become cause rather than effect.
Perhaps you could comment on how you see the Dao would approach this.
I can see how Daoism offers a great insight into nature and the Mind,
but does it open up the reality of Soul? I'd be interested to hear
what you think about this.
I find it takes me to a different state.
There is a lot said about non-duality, but my own personal experience
is that there is non-duality and then there is non-duality, if you
know what I mean. As funny and contradictory as this sounds, not all
non-duality is the same. It comes in different flavors, you might say.
I think the experience of the non-dual can take place on any of the
planes. Even in this physical world we can choose to be neither for
nor against, impartial in all our acts, seeing the natural progression
of life. But this is hardly the same as higher experiences of non-
duality.
Take the experience on the Mental Plane, for example, where non-
duality leaves one feeling a part of God Itself, and one can see the
invisible design of life weaving through all things. This is a far
deeper level of non-duality.
The non-dual experience of the Soul Plane, from my own personal
experience, is far different. It is not at odds with our
individuality. Our unique view does not separate us, but reveals how
our self-awareness is a part of God's own self-awareness, you might
say. There is something far more powerful in this state than in the
mental state. Perhaps the word power is a poor word to choose, because
it is not a power over anything.
And yet when Soul speaks, the worlds quiver, you might say. It is just
as if Spirit rushes to fill the desires of Soul, just as Soul is drawn
to know the depths of Spirit. These are not separate on the Soul
plane, and yet they are two aspects. There is no movement, and yet
there is a growing and expansion of awareness. The non-duality of the
mind worlds cannot accept this and thinks this talk is coming from a
lower place, because it is not understandable there.
Anyway, it makes for some interesting discussions and for lots of
misunderstandings. Such is the way of life.
Thanks for what you wrote. I enjoyed it a lot.
Doug.
Tian Yue
I'm going to answer your replies, Doug, in separate posts, since some
of the topics can be better responded to that way. Also, I'm short on
time, so this way I can reply in more than one sitting. The first
reply will be about my comments about power, and your replies. Context
can be read below in the text, which I've left as it is.
Doug wrote to Etznab:
I agree with you that there is no reason to give such power to
anyone.
Tian Yue wrote to Doug:
Power? "The Tao does nothing [i.e., uses no power], yet leaves nothing
undone.? -From the Taoteching, by Lao Tzu
Doug responded:
I notice that you focused on the doing nothing part, but did not
comment on the leaves nothing undone part. If you say that doing
nothing means uses no power, then the leaving nothing undone
sounds like powerful stuff to me. Elsewhere you ran a quote from the
teaching of the Tao Te Ching where is says that True Power Looks Weak,
or something like that. This means that there is such a thing as True
Power in Taoism. All of this seems in line with what I was saying.
TIAN YUE REPONDS: The quote is an interesting one from the Daodejing,
isn't it?
"The Tao does nothing [i.e., uses no power], yet leaves nothing
undone."
Another translation is, "The Tao never does a thing, yet there is
nothing it doesn't do." The other quote from the Daodejing which you
referred to from another of my posts is also interesting: "True power
looks weak."
In thinking about your response, I was about to reply, but first
checked in other translations of the ancient work. I'd begun to wonder
what other translations might be, since in my ever growing
understanding of the Daodejing and the Zhuang Zi, I'd realized the
word power seems to be infrequently used. In fact, I have to thank you
for your response, since it prompted me to go check in other sources.
Daoism is illusive as presented in language form, and I have been
gradually probing its depths. As it is, I don't think many people
truly understand Daoism, which is why so many scholars miss the point.
It is not very graspable by the linear minded. Anyway, as I thought
would be the case, other translations do not use the word power in
that particular phrase. One translation that is very literal does not
use the word power, but says rather, "the highest virtue seems low."
Some translators do confuse the Chinese word 'te' with power.
The word power is not used at all in the entire passage, which
confirms to me what I'd suspected, that the translation I'd first
quoted is rather too interpretive, rather than literal. You see,
Daoism is not very big on the concept of power. The inscrutable Dao
does not use power as we think of it. The Dao would not need power.
This is a very esoteric observation. I am not surprised you didn't
catch the meaning. And I mean no insult by this. Power is a
distinction from the world of distinction. It implies causation, and
its twin, effect. The Dao is beyond such dualities. Since all that
occurs (for lack of better words) in creation occurs as a completely
natural, effortless happening, much like fruit that grows on a tree
occurs without effort or power, or water that flows without effort, so
the Dao does nothing at all. What could it do? How could it act?
Where
is its center, from which there could be a source of causation? It
doesn't have a center, or a motivation, or a need to act or use
power.
And by this effortlessness, nothing remains undone. Things happen as a
part of what is termed Ziran, or the nature of things that occur
because it is the nature of things to occur. Summer occurs when it is
ripe to occur. The tide occurs when it is time. While one can
identify
individual forces, this is in a way, illusory. The ultimate cause is
nowhere to be seen.
Cause and effect occur in a linear time frame. In a world without such
a time frame, there is no linear cause and effect, since cause and
effect, as one unity, disappear. They are married together, and are
one, and thus, don't really exist in the Dao.
So, power is not needed by the Dao. It does not act upon itself. It
can't get in its own way. Thus what could it use power upon? The Dao
and that which is thought to be creation are one. All things, in
Daoism, occur naturally, with no deliberate, separate act of
causation. A God that acts would be a personal god, like the
Christian God that consciously goes about acting, much like a human
would act. Dao is not God. Dao neither acts, nor refrains from acting.
It is not power. Power is a concept from dualistic worlds. That which
occurs is so utterly natural that an act
of power is not part of this exquisite unity. In the same manner, a
master, becoming like the Dao, would likewise have little use for
power, as we are accustomed to viewing it.
Well, that's all I meant by my little comment. I was having a little
fun with the old, worn usual concepts bandied about. Does this clarify
my comments? I'll answer your other comments about PT's grandiose
concept of himself at a later time.
Tian Yue
Tian Yue
> In enjoyed this a lot, Tian Yue. Thanks for sharing this.
(snipped--this is so ridiculously long at this point, I've snipped the
previous text, which can be found in the previous post, although
Doug's replies are below in their entirety>
You're welcome, Doug. Sharing this was my pleasure. I enjoy reading
about Daoism, and find it fun to put myself in the shoes of those who
wrote these ancient writings. Its just fun, really. And to provide
some context to my replies to you, as I see it, you and I are two
regular guys having a conversation about philosophy. Unlike you, I
don't see either of us as great enlightened beings. I was a sixth
initiate in Eckankar, and you are still a high initiate in Eckankar.
But as you know, having been an initiator, I have pointed out on many
occasions that the initiations are entirely bogus. So, again, as I
see it we're just two people sharing our opinions about power, and its
place in spirituality. I don't take either your views or my own too
seriously. I don't see you as an authority on God, nor do I see myself
as some all-knowing being. But we each have our opinions and views.
As I have stated elsewhere, I am not a Daoist, or if I am, I'd never
be exclusively Daoist. Nor do I hold Daoism to be better than other
philosophies. Each to their own. It is your right to believe in
eckankar, as it is my right to express my experiences with eckankar as
a former member. The spiritually immature notion of "my god is higher
or better than your god" is one of the most destructive of all
religious concepts in the world today. I'd rather not let this become
a contest of which philosophy is better.
And I don't hold myself to embody all that I've found in Daoism. I
simply enjoy reading about Daoism, as well as other philosophies here
and there. Daoism certainly may have its limitations, just as it is
certain Eckankar or any other teachings have limitations. Daoism
doesn't have all the answers, but it may have some very significant
treasures to offer. And as you know, I don't believe Eckists really
are achieving anything superior to Daoists, Buddhists, or any other
religions. That is an antiquated notion. I think it is time for the
concept of global spirituality.
For those who want a teaching that truly plays no games, Daoism is a
good place to start, while exploring the world's mysteries. But I no
longer need religion to be at peace with myself. And in part, this is
something that I learned from Daoism, as well as from my Eckankar
experience. But I do think Daoism is one of the world's great
philosophies, and may be a good place to start for people as a base
from which to explore other points of view. Dao is not cultic. It
emphasizes natural living. Daosm, in its early form, is rather
harmless and compatible with most religions.
You made this comment: "It is really quite beautiful what you are
describing. I can see why you might think that what I was writing is
coming from a position of duality because of using the term and
concept of power, but I think things are not quite that simple."
Sorry to differ, but I think, in this case, things are indeed that
simple. And, in fact, you said this: "I notice that you focused on
the doing nothing part, but did not comment on the leaves nothing
undone part. If you say that doing nothing means uses no power, then
the leaving nothing undone sounds like powerful stuff to me. Elsewhere
you ran a quote from the teaching of the Tao Te Ching where is says
that True Power Looks Weak, or something like that. This means that
there is such a thing as True Power in Taoism."
So, by your own words, you believed a few minutes ago there was "True
Power" in terms of some Godly notion of power. Now you are changing
your mind, as it were, in stating this:
"Yes, it is true that there really are no causes, that things happen
without force, especially when we look with spiritual eyes from the
outer view of reality."
Cause and effect are dual concepts. They exist in linear time. In the
timeless now, there is no such relationship. Cause and effect are one.
Everything is a unity. Now, to be clear I'm referring to the Dao when
I say it is not power, and it doesn't use power. I am not referring to
your concept of God. In Daoism, nothing can be said about the Dao that
is an accurate description. That would, of course, apply to you and I
in this 'conversation.'
You also wrote this: "For example, I sense a great insight into
nature from what you described. But it also leaves me with a strong
sense of the unconscious."
When you insert into the conversation your notions of placing Daoism
in the neat little box of nature and the unconscious, of course,
you're far off the mark. The Dao is not simply "nature" and definitely
is not the "subconscious."
Of course, we all know PT placed all philosophies and religions in the
lower worlds, and he thought Daoism was on the etheric plane.
Eckankar, was stated by him to be superior to all religions.
So, with your comments, the one-upmanship has begun. Your religion is
better or higher than Dao. Of course, this would be your opinion, in
keeping with the party line. Oddly, your only rationale, thus far, is
that you have a "strong sense" your opinion is true.
I would suggest that it is your own subconscious saturation with
Eckankar writings that makes you think you "sense" (from the
subconscious) that Daoism is located on the etheric plane. After all,
you have mesmerized yourself with Eckankar for most of your life. Of
course you've absorbed the teachings subconsciously. So when you see
the word Daoism, you immediately think "subconscious," because, not
surprisingly, that is exactly what PT wrote. PT made lots of factual
errors about the Daodejing. Why would you think he was correct in his
judgment of the philosophy? He puts ALL religions and philosophies
lower than Eckankar.
And you did write this: "I am not trying to put it down. But it seems
to me to be describing the way of Mind and the Universal Mind, you
might call it."
Again you assert that I am describing the "Universal Mind" without
offering a shred of any reason why you believe this. I find this habit
of making a flat statement, with no attempt to
give any reason for your opinion, rather peculiar. It is as if you
hold yourself strangely beyond that basic requirement. Simply offering
up a box to put Daoism in, or a label, says nothing. Anyone can put
things in boxes, or apply labels, but these are empty statements. You
haven't given any reason why any person should blindly accept these
unsubstantiated statements, simply because you made them.
But the Dao is not Mind or Universal Mind, according to Daoists. The
ancients who wrote the Daoist classics made that very clear. They
emphatically claim that to find the Dao, one must empty the mind, and
unlearn knowledge and learning. They believe that only by emptying all
thought can one truly understand the Dao. To elaborate further, they
do not believe it is "understanding" at all that one achieves. The
emptiness itself reveals the Dao.
You wrote of soul sometimes needing to "assert its own inner authority
and become cause rather than effect."
Daoists see this somewhat differently. They would say that attempting
to artificially and inflexibly be "cause" (i.e., powerful) can create
imbalances, since focusing too much on "cause" will create conflicts
with "effect." The two should work together. Instead, they look for
gentle harmony with all life, or harmony with situations they find
themselves in. This doesn't at all imply being too passive. They look
for the grain of the wood, so to speak, so that they can flow with it.
There is the old Daoist saying that one should bend like the willow,
rather than resist. Paul Twitchell used the phrase "the law of
reversed effort" as did, coincidently, Alan Watts in an earlier work
to describe this principle.
In the West, we emphasize "conquering" nature and our environment, as
well as all circumstances we find ourselves in. We try to be in the
position of power. But Daoists see this as foolish. An example would
be the climbers who tried to climb Mount Hood in Oregon, but got lost
and froze to death. Daoists would not try to "conquer" the mountain,
as if that would be a great achievement. Instead, they'd wait for the
most efficacious time to climb the mountain, working with the flow,
harmonizing with the mountain, rather than fighting it. As such,
allowing themselves to be effect, they find themselves in a better
position. They flow with cause or effect according to what fits the
circumstances. Daoist might say that those who try to be rigidly
"cause," with no flexibility, will find the world mass against that un-
flowing state. Look what has happened to Bush in Iraq. He pushed too
hard, refusing to compromise, using his power to put America in a
powerful position, and his rigid, unbending stance, his unwillingness
to allow himself to go with the flow when it was warranted, has caused
enormous problems. Sometimes the more we try to be "cause," the more
problems we encounter. In Daoist philosophy, when we find ourselves at
the farthest point in any direction, the tide then begins to turn in
the opposite direction.
At the moment we're conquering the world, but in doing so creating the
possibility of our own demise with global warming. So by being cause
and conquering our environment, we end up becoming effect. It is
better to be humble and work with our environment, and let it have
some breathing room.
You compared what you call the non-duality of the mental with the non-
duality of the soul plane. Eckankar does not teach that the mental
plane is a non-dual state. It is in the lower worlds, thus is a world
of duality. I think you meant it has the appearance of non-duality.
Daoists would see your description of the soul plane as a plane of
duality, since you refer to distinctions (things you can name)
existing on that plane, such as soul, and awareness, power, etc. The
soul plane is even said in Eckankar literature to have its own
resident God, Sat Nam, which is the "first manifestation of the
Sugmad." Personified gods are definitely not the Dao. Such personal
gods would be part of the world of distinctions.
The Dao truly is not a duality, and there are no things to name or
attribute to Dao. All Eckankar planes, with the exception, possibly,
of the Sugmad, refer to beings, things, even geography, mountains,
peaks, rivers, etc. And even masters are said to cavort about, going
here and there on those planes. Daoists would see all these as part of
the world of distinctions. The mental plane would not be seen as the
Dao, since mind and thought is not Dao, and there are places and
things located on that plane, such as the three peaks, the river,
cities, temples, and even Eckankar's dark lord Kal, another
personified god. All these images and distinctions would not be the
unspeakable Dao. The Dao is not a location.
There is only one plane that might, possibly, be considered Dao, if it
were not for its anthropomorphism, and that would be Sugmad. But even
Sugmad falls short, since it is attributed with all sorts of
attributes and qualities, and even has consciousness and self
awareness. It also is a God that takes action, as expressed in the
axiom, "soul exists because god loves it." This is a very
anthropomorphic concept, in that God has a personal relationship with
beings outside of itself. The Dao is not mind, and not consciousness,
but rather, is so vastly super-conscious or more fittingly, supra-
conscious that it transcends even consciousness. This is something
that will not be readily understood by many, which is expected. But in
a supra-conscious state, in which all is a merged as a unity, there is
nothing to be conscious of. There is no time, nor space, and no
distinctions. With no distinctions, there is nothing to be aware of as
humans understand awareness and consciousness. The Dao is beyond those
states. The Dao is not beingness, or non-beingness. It is so supra-
conscious that it is said to not be sentient, as we think of
sentience. It is beyond sentience. It is unfathomable.
Well, that was sort of fun to try to put into words. I wouldn't be at
all surprised if no one reads this far. <G>
Tian Yue
> Doug.- Hide quoted text -
Etznab
"So, if it is all myth, then why would you care about tracking down the facts? I don't follow this."
a.) To discover how the myths originated.
b.) Who was responsible for creating them.
c.) The reason(s) why the myths were created.
and
d.) To safeguard against people being FOOLED AGAIN into substituting fiction for fact.
***
I've been investigating news events and history (including religious history) for over ten years now and I can attest that facts very often do matter. That to surrender to myth-makers and the stories that they would try to paint over the facts is sometimes to surrender to the worst kind of slavery. In the arena of organized religion, I believe the submission to fiction over fact can render people as slaves - body, mind and Soul! And a good indictation that the masters are trying to enslave people is to look at the master's responses to people who choose to be free. To people who would choose to know the truth and the facts instead of fiction and myths.
Santim Vah
snipped
>
> Doug once wrote to me something to the effect of:
>
>
>
> "So, if it is all myth, then why would you care about tracking down the facts? I don't follow this."
>
>
>
> In answer to "So, if it is all myth, then why would you care about tracking down the facts?" let me just say this:
>
>
>
> a.) To discover how the myths originated.
>
>
>
> b.) Who was responsible for creating them.
>
>
>
> c.) The reason(s) why the myths were created.
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> d.) To safeguard against people being FOOLED AGAIN into substituting fiction for fact.
>
>
>
> ***
>
>
>
> I've been investigating news events and history (including religious history) for over ten years now and I can attest that facts very often do matter. That to surrender to myth-makers and the stories that they would try to paint over the facts is sometimes to surrender to the worst kind of slavery. In the arena of organized religion, I believe the submission to fiction over fact can render people as slaves - body, mind and Soul! And a good indictation that the masters are trying to enslave people is to look at the master's responses to people who choose to be free. To people who would choose to know the truth and the facts instead of fiction and myths.
I saw this in the prior post by Doug and juts have to comment on it becasue to me it is really an important issue:
"Paul delibrately chose to teach about spiritual truth in a way that
jostles the mind. He knew very well that many could not stomach what
he was teaching. I don't think he expected what he wrote would be
understood by most people. I think he was in fact interested in those
who did know what he was talking about and were adventurous enough to
leave behind the need for outer authorities and outer forms of truth."
"Paul delibrately chose to teach about spiritual truth in a way that
jostles the mind."
As Doug has said repeatedly "no one can know what another's intentions motivations really were"
But Doug repeatedly tells everyone else what they are regarding Paul anyway. If don't agree with Doug's interpretations, then there must be something wrong with YOU. That's the standard M.O.
For all Doug truly knows, just because reading Paul's writings tends to joggle the mind does not make it so that it was INTENTIONAL via his writing style. There are other many other options. This is only Doug's personal BELIEF that he has formed around himself.
====
"He knew very well that many could not stomach what
he was teaching."
On the other hand Doug might very well be right .. even by accident.
As to Paul, if this is really what he thought then he comes across as very cavalier and unconcerned about others peoples "stomachs" as he never held back from advertising to anybody and everybody from anywhere and accepting whoever turned up with an application form filled out and fees enclosed.
====
"I don't think he expected what he wrote would be
understood by most people."
Perhaps a more refined narrowly targeted marketing campaign may have helped to only find those worthy enough to understand his *writings*. Not sure.
But the human wreckage his *writings* left behind in their wake says something of itself.
=====
"I think he was in fact interested in those
who did know what he was talking about and were adventurous enough to
leave behind the need for outer authorities and outer forms of truth."
As to being interested in those who did know what he was talking about .. well two things here IF what Doug suggests is even close to being true.
1) Then Paul definitely didn't care an iota about those who didn't understand his writings etc no matter how much psychological and psychic havoc his teachings and system and organisation caused them.
and 2) Those that Doug speaks about who Doug deems (in his wisdom) as being capable of understanding didn't need his writings to begin with .... .
In my humble opinion, given what I know about this matter from Doug and many many others over the years including myself.
Thank you very much.
Sean
Santim Vah
Etznab,
The similarities about Kirpal visiting Paul in his apartment are not
surprising, since as Paul said he had many such visits by many
masters. He also said this same thing about Rebazar Tarzs around that
same period of time.
Just because Paul said Kirpal or RT or whoever appeared in his apartment does not mean that it is true and happened.
In fact when the letters and manuscripts that Paul wrote about what Kirpal said to him and what RT said to him in his apartment and elsewhere are actually verbatim word for word copying of other peoples texts kind of puts a cloud over this whole claim.
Not a claim that Paul had some kind of inner spiritual experiences that seemed to indicate to Paul such and such was "present" ... but that the words Paul claims they spoke to him in his apartment were ever said by such "appearances or vision or belief" that they did.
For if they actually did turn up and say what Paul claims they did .. why all the endless stories about Paul's perfect photographic memory as he *recalled* all the writings from the books he read from his *wisdom pool*
My main point in all of this is about being aware and beware of the the cherry picker who chops and changes what they say about a particular topic depending on the *context* they wish to present at any given time.
You just can't pluck an idea, a belief, or an opinion about something like Doug has here and simultaneously simply ignore every other known thing about it.
One thing is for certain in all this and I dont need any proof .. and that is Paul knew full well how his plagiasrims affected other people long before he published The Far Country (and the others).
Paul must have known full well what he was doing and the affect this would have on other people because he had had to confront this kind of reaction many times before.
iow he knew from direct personal experience the effects on other people (and yet still didnt appear at all interested about those people) and he also had other options that were not taken.
Doug tends to put this up there as being a mark of a master and great spiritual advantage Paul had. But it wasn't a zero sum gain .. there were costs to this that Paul never had to pay for ... but others did.
well maybe he did pay a personal cost .. I don't know for sure.
cheers sean