Vital

[Etznab]

"[....] In Paul's last words before his death, at the Cincinnati
Seminar, as recorded in the book, Difficulties of Becoming The Living
ECK Master, pages 134-135, he said:

A lot of the impressions that I first set out in my first work,
I'm having to go back and redo these things and try to correct them.
I'm like the fellow who felt his way along in a college course. They
told him he had to write a book in order to keep in the work, and he
didn't know what to say. He had to go and he had to do something,
but when he did, he got it all wrong. And by getting it all wrong, ten
years from there, he had to go back and correct his book and rewrite
it, and nobody believed him because they were believing the first
impression of what he made. And this is the position I'm in.

   "[...] If you follow what is being described here, you will see
that in all these ways Paul was choosing associations. He was trying
to avoid or remove associations that carried preconceived connotations
and replace them with new terms that could act as symbols and clear
channels, making it easier for others to connect with the Reality that
our language does not have words for.
"In doing all this, Paul was bringing to ECKANKAR a freedom from
past traditions while incorporating the elements from them that were
vital. The concept of spiritual lineage was important, but the
restrictions, traditions and worship that go along with physical
lineage was not. Therefore, Paul described the spiritual line of ECK
Masters, not for its historical accuracy based upon historical
records, but to show that as the Sufis say there is always one who is
the spiritual Pole of the world, and this light has passed from
continent to continent, from race to race, from culture to culture,
down through time.
"Therefore, when Kirpal changed his attitude toward Paul, and
Paul began to remove Kirpal's name from his writings, replacing it
with Sudar Singh or Rebazar Tarzs, Paul also began to see a whole new
direction for his teaching of ECKANKAR. It was one wholly connected to
an inner source, not tied to history or tradition, or even his own
past. [....]"

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm

***

Imagine that. Paul having to go back and redo things and try to
correct them! (Not to mention getting anything wrong.)

Umm ... Paul died shortly after that speech. It was 1971. Today it is
2012. Paul hasn't been around to redo, or correct anything for over 40
years now!

Doug, in part, commented on what Paul said. Including:

(1) "Paul was choosing associations. He was trying to avoid or remove
associations that carried preconceived connotations and replace them
with new terms that could act as symbols and clear channels, making it
easier for others to connect with the Reality that our language does
not have words for."

(2) "Paul was bringing to ECKANKAR a freedom from past traditions
while incorporating the elements from them that were vital."

(3) "... when Kirpal changed his attitude toward Paul, and Paul began
to remove Kirpal's name from his writings, replacing it with Sudar
Singh or Rebazar Tarzs, Paul also began to see a whole new direction
for his teaching of ECKANKAR. It was one wholly connected to an inner
source, not tied to history or tradition, or even his own past.
[....]"

Let's look at a definition for vital.

vital (adj.) - late 14c., "of or manifesting life," from L. vitalis
"of or belonging to life," from vita "life," related to vivere "to
live," from PIE root *gwei- (cf. O.Pers. *jivaka- "alive;" Gk. bios
"life," zoon "animal;" Lith. gyvata "(eternal) life;" O.E. cwic, cwicu
"living, alive;" O.Ir. bethu "life;" cf. also bio-). The sense of
"necessary or important" is from 1610s, via the notion of "essential
to life" (late 15c.). Vital capacity recorded from 1852.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vital&searchmode=none

Literally, the word vital had to do with life (as with vital
statistics). Later, it apparently developed the connotation of
"necessary or important".

Here is another excerpt containing the word vital. This time from
Harold Klemp.

"We are making an effort to construct a physical history of ECKANKAR,
looking for actual physical records to verify the existence of some of
the ECK Masters in a way that historians of the future will be able to
accept; something beyond just the words of one of the Living ECK
Masters of the past. It will be vital for the survival of ECKANKAR as
a religious teaching in the future. [... .]"

[Based on: Harold Klemp, The Secret Teachings, p. 246]

***

At this point I find it noteworthy to mention one of three main
tenants for spiritual paths such as Sant Mat, Radhasoami Satsang,
Ruhani Satsang and Eckankar. It appears in the following basic generic
phrase:

"The Master, the Sound Current, and Spiritual Liberation in this
lifetime."

The word Master (in that context) can be qualified as a LIVING Master,
IMHO.

When Paul reportedly "removed associations", "was bringing to Eckankar
a freedom from past traditions", "began to remove Kirpal's name" (and
others), and "began to see a whole new direction for his teaching of
Eckankar ... one wholly connected to an inner source, not tied to
history or tradition, or even his own past. [....]" - according to
comments by Doug - Paul also (IMHO) removed something vital. He
removed vital information about the LIVING Master(s) part from the
history of "Eckankar" whereby people could learn about connections
(among other things).

What is this whole new direction for Eckankar? Wholly (not partially,
mind you, but wholly) connected to an inner source? Not tied to
history or tradition. Not even Paul Twitchell's own past?

I think it important to quote Paul again:

"A lot of the impressions that I first set out in my first work, I'm
having to go back and redo these things and try to correct them.
[... .]"

How about the impressions where you made stuff up, Paul? Where you
removed vital historical information and replaced it with fiction?
Where you copied the words from books by other people and subsequently
attributed their words to Eck Masters? How about those impressions,
Paul? What people have failed to adequately correct for 40+ years
after your death? (In spite of published research that practically
does it for them?)

Ahh ... is vital really so important? Apparently it is important. Even
necessary, when a LIVING Master figures to be such a main tenant ...
even for the path of Eckankar.

***

The following words will live in infamy:

"... and nobody believed him because they were believing the first
impression of what he made. And this is the position I'm in."

***

And when the vital information does come forward to present itself
(including troves of that which already has) ... How may people will
then believe?

Go to first posts at alt.religion.eckankar and begin to read. And when
you reach this particular post ... may you then have the answer.

Etznab

[Etznab]

> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vital&s...

I watched this program (in full) last night. Click the link and listen
to the first section (and note the following words ..

(1) "... most people changed their answers, to go along with the
crowd."

(2) "Most ... stuck with the wrong answer ... ."

(3) "The falsehood has taken root in their brains."

http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/

*********

Somebody - who is NOT WAITING to do something some day, or to "show
where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from." - has spoken.

*********

"I'm doing all this research in a soundproof booth so it doesn't
disturb the other people who are doing research. As I look over at a
table, I see Paul--busy as usual, researching and writing. He looks at
me and says, kind of gruffly, "What's that?"

" 'Source manuscripts,' I say.

" 'For what?' he asks.

" 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from,' I
reply.

" 'Oh,' he says. 'Well, we'll have to do something about that
someday.'

"Then he picks up his notebook and leaves, heading out into the
stacks.

"Yeah, I thought to myself, and I know who is going to have to do
something about that someday! "

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

[wernertrp]

The last two words of Gurdjieff:

Gurdjieff lying on his deathbed.
One of his pupils standing near the bed.
Gurdjieff wispering: "come closer", the pupil
bend his ear nearer and nearer to the mouth of Gurdjieff
awaiting the important message from Gurdjieff:

"Fuck you."

[Etznab]

On Jun 29, 12:08 am, Santim Vah <sean.arund...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re Doug's assumption & theory here:
>
> "... Paul also began to see a whole new direction for his teaching of

> ECKANKAR. It was one wholly connected to an inner source, not tied to
> history or tradition, or even his own past. [....]"
>

> Quite frankly, that is plainly false and provably so. Paul's 1968 to
> 1971 version of his teaching is in fact directly connected and tied to
> a history and a tradition, as well as his own past, and in fact what
> was then his present. That being his daily life of 1968-1971. And that
> being al the other writings he lifted from and re-configured into his
> hodge-podge of a cheap Religion - and I use the word very loosely.
>
> He did NOT present a teaching that was ONLY or Wholly connected to an
> inner source at all. He presented a conglomerate of a half-baked
> ludicrous history and tradition that causes far more harm to every
> individual coming anywhere near it, than it helps.
>
> He continued to to TIE it to the writings of RS Salig Ram, and poets,
> and other writers when he wrote the book Stranger by the River. He
> continued to TIE it DIRECTLY to a character called Rebazar Tarzs
> living in a hindu kush hut, and who he claimed lived in the 15th 16th
> century and who Paul claimed helped Christopher Columbus find America.
> He continued to TIE The Far Country to the writings of Julian Johnson,
> and Kirpal, and Sawan Singh and others.
>
> He continued to TIE his teaching to the tradition of RS, and every
> other Bhakti teaching in the sub continent by repeating the *vital*
> necessity of a Living Master, as he said "The Master, the Sound
> Current, and Spiritual Liberation in this lifetime." That is as TIED
> to all other Hindu, Buddhist, Bhakti, Kabir, RS and CHRISTIAN
> teachings as the thousands of other paths on this planet.
>
> He continued to crate a FAKE Tradition of Eck masters, and rules, and
> guidelines, and initiation circles, and and chosen people, and made up
> a new Bible called the Shariyat which is as useless as any Christian
> Bible, or Torah or Quran. He created a tradition of HIGH PRIESTS, and
> lower Priests, of hurdles, and rules that governed almost every aspect
> of a chelas life, he created such a WORLDLY Tradition that within 10
> years darwin gross and harold Klemp were having open warfare about
> what those WORLDLY TRADITIONS were or were not, and on top of that
> Paul created the foundations for a RELIGION started as a Non-Profit
> Religious Organisation BEFORE HE DIED ... which has nothing whatsoever
> to do with anything wholly connected to an inner source as Doug so
> arrogantly and intentionally suggests .. and Doug himself continues
> the world tradition of Eckankar of endless MYTH MAKING and deceptive
> rationalisations that go all the way to very mundane and very worldly
> LEGAL arguments and formalised legal structures .. things that Paul
> himself created. Rules for example that are supposed to determine who
> and what is a Mahanta, or a Living ECK master tradition ... on this
> planet.
>
> And besides the more overt examples of arguments over eevry thousand
> years, or five to a thousand years, and the supposedly mahantas with
> acess to the all the inner planes of God, instead they are pouring
> over carbon copies of Paul's WRITINGS to work out who is who in the
> ZOO< and who is right or wrong, and who has the FACTS good enough to
> win a damned court case and then CONVINCE the thousands who KNOW
> NOTHING about this duplicitous garbage coming out of all the mouths
> put up as some kind of AUTHORITY on Eckankar .. then comes the COVERT
> secret conspirators playing hide and sek behind the scenes as HI
> authorities who knew Paul and taking gullible fools under their wing
> to TEACH them stories about Eckankar that is totally DIFFERENT than
> the Shariyat, all the traditional books of Eckankar, ALL THE
> DISCOURSES AND ALL THE TAPES ... and the Living ECK master of the day
> who according to Paul's WORLDLY TRADITION is supposed to the WORD OF
> ECK, the living word of the SUGMAD in the flesh .. and still it goes
> on today with no stopping.
>
>  So when Doug makes wild claims such as this (and it is only ONE in a
> very very long list    "... Paul also began to see a whole new

> direction for his teaching of ECKANKAR. It was one wholly connected to
> an inner source, not tied to history or tradition, or even his own
> past. [....]"
>

> what he is actually doing is speaking rank UNTRUTHS and spinning
> something out anyway he can to shore up his own internalised beliefs,
> self-delusions, and the many implants that were FORCED into his own
> head by others such as Patti Simpson, and Gail Twitchell over the
> years, whilst he continued to call himself and representing himself as
> an Eckist, as an AUTHORITY with INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, when simultaneously
> and quite publicly being it complete conflict with the teachings, the
> rules, the guidelines, the SPIRITUAL LAW as laid down by Harold Klemp,
> the Living ECK Master.
>
> They are ALL full of themselves and their own self-importance and
> rationalised superior authorities .. from Paul to Gail, and down all
> the way to harold and Doug and whoever else wants to claim the holder
> of the whole truth. What a pathetic joke!
>
> ALL are Mini-masters talking bullshit, mixed with an ounce of truth
> STOLEN from other traditions and stories, MYTHS and beliefs ... but
> today, and since the shit hit the fan in the 1970's, primarily
> whatever version of Eckankar one chooses to BELIEVE or get sucked into
> they are ALL nothing better than the adopted beliefs of others handed
> down through a OUTER TRADITIONAL SYSTEM and HISTORY by gullible idiots
> and fools and arrogant head trips ... no one can agree on anything ..
> and never will.
>
> Which brings me to the BABY vs the BATH WATER ... who can tell the
> difference? Many claim they can, biut none of them know nor could they
> in five to a thousand years ever explain it to another sane person on
> this planet from Paul onwards.
>
> The baby is Occult practices, and psychic techniques. And Esoteric
> Psychology and Esoteric Astrology, and human nature, and basic science
> of the working of the brain as CREATED and and abused by all, it is
> basic modern Psychology, and the affects of parents and social
> conditioning, and the practices of manipulation and deception, of the
> left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and there is no
> one on this planet that dabbles with the stuff within a irresponsible
> and corrupt organisation like Eckankar that won't go severly out of
> balance or believe that it is just fine to go jump off a bridge in the
> dead of night into icey water ending up in a mental instituion like
> harold Klemp did. Some are luckier and don't end up there, but there
> are those less fortunate who get so psychically abused by head trips
> in Eckankar and their misguided attemps to make sesne out of a
> teaching that is in fact NON_sensical irrational and incredibly
> dangerous that they will end up DEAD and they have!
>
> There's some enormous karma stacked up upon all in this so called
> spiritual teaching about Love and service to one's fellow man. And
> Paul Twitchell totally screwed it up big time .. and lost control of
> the entire project he believed he could handle. Well he couldn't - in
> fact he BLEW IT big time! And he KNEW he had before he died.
>
> But none of these so-called authority's care an ounce for such people
> and the serious HARM still being perpetrated on the unsuspecting,
> because in their narcissistic world view, their own self-importance
> and self-appointed positions of Wisdom, 100% Certainty, and AUTHORITY
> within a no-nothing going no where fast Group of like-minded fools and
> their own delusional fantasies that lies to themselves that such
> occurrences are merely the working out of one's individual karma and
> not at all the direct CAUSE of the teaching and those who run it, and
> keep it going.
>
> But according to the likes of Patti Simpson and that sub-sect, as well
> as the mindless personality cult who adore harold today, well some
> just stay because they enjoy the power they wield. Yes that's true,
> and some who really enjoyed the power they wielded were the Pattis,
> and the Gails, and the all the oldies, and the Marge Klemps, and the
> Harold's, the Kunins and the peter Skelskys and the greatest MYTH
> Maker himself Doug Marman and everyone who was in Bright Future and
> yet still cannot speak truth because they do NOT KNOW IT, and never
> did. They are all corrupt and delusional and refuse to look at
> themselves i the mirror lest it fracture into a million pieces before
> their eyes.
>
> What needs to happen to ALL these people, from every sub-sect within
> Eckankar is to be dragged out in public. Then stood up against a
> concrete wall and metaphorically shot!
>
> Every single last one of them .. in every Satsang in the world, the
> entire ESC Office, the Board members past and present, the 8ths, the
> 7ths, the lying 5ths who know they are NOT self-realised at all, and
> know nothing in truth .. the next fool going out postering or running
> an Intro talk or a HU song at their local eck centre ... all of them,
> every single last one of them.

OMG. How articulate was that? I must admit I am severely impressed
with your descriptive abilities. This one is my favorite line:

"... instead they are pouring over carbon copies of Paul's WRITINGS to
work out who is who in the ZOO."

Is Haley's comet passing by? I thought that was a stroke of genius.

[Etznab]

> " 'Sourcemanuscripts,' I say.

>
> " 'For what?' he asks.
>
> " 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from,' I
> reply.
>
> " 'Oh,' he says. 'Well, we'll have to do something about that
> someday.'
>
> "Then he picks up his notebook and leaves, heading out into the
> stacks.
>
> "Yeah, I thought to myself, and I know who is going to have to do
> something about that someday! "
>
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

"I'm doing all this research in a soundproof booth so it doesn't
disturb the other people who are doing research. As I look over at a
table, I see Paul--busy as usual, researching and writing. He looks at
me and says, kind of gruffly, "What's that?"

" 'Source manuscripts,' I say.

" 'For what?' he asks.

" 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from,' I
reply.

" 'Oh,' he says. 'Well, we'll have to do something about that
someday.'

"Then he picks up his notebook and leaves, heading out into the
stacks.

"Yeah, I thought to myself, and I know who is going to have to do
something about that someday! "

***

I thought this meant that Harold said "... he would have to do
something about the sources of Paul's writings someday?" However, it
has come to my attention this is NOT exactly what Harold said.

There is another place where the Astral Library quotes by Harold Klemp
appear.

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

On the same page where DOUG SAYS "Why would Harold say that he would
have to do something about the sources of Paul's writings someday?"

Where does Harold say that?

On Doug's page he doesn't appear to be denying that (any of) Paul's
writings came from others. Example:

"If Harold was trying to convince ECKists, as David suggests, that
Paul's words never came from the writings of others, then why would
Harold have talked about the five stages following the death of an
ideal? Why would he have spoken about the need to accept that Paul was
not a god? Why would he have called Paul a master compiler? Why would
Harold say that he would have to do something about the sources of
Paul's writings someday? [... .]

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

I could be wrong about this, but what Doug appears to be saying is
that Paul took from "inner records" on the Astral Plane (Astral
Library). Example.

"I think Harold's point is very straightforward: The Inner Libraries
show the true sources of where the writings of ECKANKAR came from.
This doesn't mean that Paul's writings were all taken directly from
the source manuscripts, as David is claiming Harold said. Rather,
these inner records are what guided Paul as he wove the teachings into
a cohesive whole, just as they have guided other authors. In other
words, Harold's point was that Paul recognized the quality in Julian
Johnson's writings, as well as other writers such as Paul Brunton,
because Paul saw how they fit with the inner teachings as a whole."

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

(Personally, I don't buy all of this mumbo jumbo. I think it's a case
of trying to "outfit for Eckankar" the writings of others by making it
seem like they (the sources of them) are in the Astral Library and not
the Seattle library :)

What does this all really mean? What is Harold talking about when he
describes his conversation with (the late?) Paul Twitchell? Was Harold
dreaming this? He doesn't appear to say so on the page. The word dream
appears only once on the page, and not in connection with Harold's
Astral Library experience.

(In another place I read where Paul Twitchell - post mortem - dictated
a whole book to someone (to an X-Darwin Gross initiate?)

Was Harold Soul Traveling, or dreaming with his Paul Twitchell /
Astral Library experience? I'm not sure what it says.

Regardless, that one instance (Harold's experience) does appear to
have him quoting Paul Twitchell. (After Paul Twitchell translated /
died?)

[Etznab]

Looking this over again, some key words appear to be: "To show where a
lot of the ECK writings on earth came from ... ."

Came from. As in past tense.

[Etznab]

Forgot the reference link for this.

http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html

[Etznab]

There appear to be at least three different versions of what Harold
Klemp said concerning a particular sentence in excerpts I recently
quoted. For the three different versions I'm talking about, refer to
the following sentences:

(1) " 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from,
[... .]" - Based on Doug Marman's version in his 2000 online book.

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

(2) "[...] For ... from where a lot of the writings ... Eck writings
on Earth came from [... .]" - Version based on 1984 (April) Eckankar
International Youth Conference, audiotape 4312, copyright 1984, side
two (near the end).

(3) "[...] For a lot of the ECK writings to be done on earth, [... .]"
- Based on: Eckankar transcript version in Harold's book and on the
official Eckankar website.

http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html

*********

Apparently, both Doug Marman's version and the Eckankar transcript
version are not exactly the words Harold Klemp spoke in April 1984;
concerning Harold's encounter with the late Paul Twitchell at the
astral plane library, what have you.

I never before noticed that three different versions existed. And
while it is common for the transcript and book versions of talks to
differ from the actual talk, with this particular sentence I see a
remarkable difference.

[Santim Vah]

>
> There appear to be at least three different versions of what Harold
> Klemp said concerning a particular sentence in excerpts I recently
> quoted. For the three different versions I'm talking about, refer to
> the following sentences:
>
> (1) " 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from,
> [... .]" - Based on Doug Marman's version in his 2000 online book.
>
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm
>
> (2) "[...] For ... from where a lot of the writings ... Eck writings
> on Earth came from [... .]" - Version based on 1984 (April) Eckankar
> International Youth Conference, audiotape 4312, copyright 1984, side
> two (near the end).
>
> (3) "[...] For a lot of the ECK writings to be done on earth, [... .]"
> - Based on: Eckankar transcript version in Harold's book and on the
> official Eckankar website.
>
> http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html
>
> *********
>
> Apparently, both Doug Marman's version and the Eckankar transcript
> version are not exactly the words Harold Klemp spoke in April 1984;
> concerning Harold's encounter with the late Paul Twitchell at the
> astral plane library, what have you.
>
> I never before noticed that three different versions existed. And
> while it is common for the transcript and book versions of talks to
> differ from the actual talk, with this particular sentence I see a
> remarkable difference.

Clearly version 3 on the website and in transcripts book 3 does not
reflect what was really said and intended at the time in 1984.

I won't waste my time for a moment trying to work out why, except to
note that it can not be a simple accident, or transcription error by
mistake, but instead by design and for an unknown purpose by someone
with HKs approval.

It happens a lot over the years. Eckankar writings have been changing
repeatedly since Paul first wrote the word in July 1963. That's
probably the only thing that won't change :-)

[Etznab]

Combined with Doug's quote - which sounds closer to what Harold said
on the audio - is this sentence on Doug's same source page.

"Why would Harold say that he would have to do something about the
sources of Paul's writings someday?"

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm

This, IMO, is not talking about future writings. But where "... a lot
of the ECK writings on earth came from".

***

It really threw me for a loop to see the official Eckankar version (in
book and on website) different from other versions.

That Eckankar book where the transcript appears (The Secret Teachings,
Mahanta Transcripts Book 3) was copyright 1989? and Doug's online book
was copyright 2000? How, or Why would Doug misquote the Eckankar book
and the official Eckankar website? Because he wanted to more closely
represent what Harold Klemp originally said?

Now that is something.

Did Doug update the quote in his 2007 book: The Whole Truth?
Apparently not. He used the same quote.

" 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from,

[... .]" - p. 401, The Whole Truth, by Doug Marman.

Yes. This is really something. I think I have more respect for Doug
now than I do the Eckankar book and website.

[Santim Vah]

> Yes. This is really something. I think I have more respect for Doug
> now than I do the Eckankar book and website.

The funniest thing yet useful reminder about this, is that even though
I may have read that passage many times, and had even copied it and
researched various things about that talk, I had not once noticed that
glaring error before in the text... never noticed the words were
DIFFERENT .. when I say glaring error, as against what I had come to
believe was *said* , and reading Doug's work too, where he quotes it
totally differently, still for about 10 years I have never noticed
this error before now.

I also say example because it has happened on numerous occasions the
last 3 years repeatedly .. slowing down and reading what is actually
there in the text versus what one *believes* is there, is something
quite amazing .. :-) It totally changes impressions, and what had
appeared before one's eyes has now disappeared for it was never
actually there.

More than that, one might re-read an artcile or an advert 10 times
before they finally NOTICE something they had not recognised before ..
this is really common imho, and one fo the reasons that so many
argumetns would arise on busy newsgrouops, becasue so few were
actually READING what was there, vs what they had PROJECTED there into
the text .. and thus respond accordingly.


Researching history and one's life isn't easy, which is why so few
attempt it, and even fewer do it well. Being *neutral* is a key
aspect .. being able to suspend one's beliefs and allow a space of
clarity to exists is not easy. Memory really is such a flaky thing.
It's always pointed out how many errors and mistakes DL made along the
way ... and it's true, as far as details are concerned. But he isn't
the only one who has had trouble recognising what's real and what's
imagination based on what others have told us. or what we imagine we
saw written or said a while ago.

My Fav Doug Marman quotes from the The Whole Truth book are:

see pg 53 "Obviously, I had accepted things as true without
researching the facts for myself and it had affected my perceptions of
Paul without even realising it."

page 61 "It is fascinating to see how myths perpetuate themselves."

Well, it sure fascinates me more than I expected. <G>

Time for a bit of Copy and Paste

[Etznab]

I hadn't noticed it either, until somebody tipped me off :)

***

Was going through a.r.e. the other day and saw numerous quotes about
those two versions and wondered if anybody had seen the difference
then. Not to mention, if anybody had quoted the audio.

If an earlier discussion about this, I would really love to look at
what was said. One can easily find the past quotes about this topic by
searching a.r.e. for keyword: gruffly. Or, go here.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/search?hl=en&q=gruffly&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&

I just don't have the time to check if discussion about two, or three
different versions of the one sentence before. When do get time, I
might check.

Oh well, What the heck. I searched for just a little bit on the Net
(about three minutes) when I found something of relevance. Here's a
short excerpt to give the gist of what it's about.

"As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has
become misunderstood in this way. I cover this in my book as well. I
know that some could say that I am just offering another
interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct
one? The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me
about the whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that
dream and gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite
straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to
swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy
with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to
clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral
Library dream as well."

http://www.mombu.com/religion/eckankar/t-another-question-for-doug-god-sense-books-clear-office-13150495.html

I tried to find the original T.S. post for a time frame when Doug
wrote that. It appears to be early 2004. See January 3rd, 2004 post:
Response to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144

[Etznab]

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/search?hl=en&q=g...

>
> I just don't have the time to check if discussion about two, or three
> different versions of the one sentence before. When do get time, I
> might check.
>
> Oh well, What the heck. I searched for just a little bit on the Net
> (about three minutes) when I found something of relevance. Here's a
> short excerpt to give the gist of what it's about.
>
> "As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has
> become misunderstood in this way. I cover this in my book as well. I
> know that some could say that I am just offering another
> interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct
> one? The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me
> about the whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that
> dream and gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite
> straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to
> swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy
> with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to
> clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral
> Library dream as well."
>

> http://www.mombu.com/religion/eckankar/t-another-question-for-doug-go...

>
> I tried to find the original T.S. post for a time frame when Doug
> wrote that. It appears to be early 2004. See January 3rd, 2004 post:
> Response to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman
>
> http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144

Doug writes:

"I know Harold was not happy with what he had learned and felt that
Paul had left him a mess to clean up."

And that was from direct first-hand experience, I presume.

So let the record show:

THAT HAROLD WAS NOT THE ONLY PERSON UNHAPPY WITH WHAT HE HAD LEARNED

[Etznab]

On Jul 10, 10:10 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/search?hl=en&q=g...

>
> I just don't have the time to check if discussion about two, or three
> different versions of the one sentence before. When do get time, I
> might check.
>
> Oh well, What the heck. I searched for just a little bit on the Net
> (about three minutes) when I found something of relevance. Here's a
> short excerpt to give the gist of what it's about.
>
> "As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has
> become misunderstood in this way. I cover this in my book as well. I
> know that some could say that I am just offering another
> interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct
> one? The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me
> about the whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that
> dream and gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite
> straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to
> swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy
> with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to
> clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral
> Library dream as well."
>

> http://www.mombu.com/religion/eckankar/t-another-question-for-doug-go...

>
> I tried to find the original T.S. post for a time frame when Doug
> wrote that. It appears to be early 2004. See January 3rd, 2004 post:
> Response to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman
>
> http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144

"He was quite straightforward and told me that even though it might be
hard to swallow he was discovering a growing list."

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144

David Lane discovered a growing list, too. In fact, I would say, he
prompted discovery.

Thank you, David.

And thank you to all the others who added and who continue to add to
the growing list. In spite of how others treat you.

Etznab

[Etznab]

This looks significant considering that Eckankar had - by that time already? become a Non-Profit Religious Organization?

Think about it. How many religions go back and correct "earlier impressions"?

Paul was talking about correcting things? And these were a part of his last words? (Did I get that right?)

Who was it that told Paul he had to "write a book" and "do something", etc.?

"[...] I'm like the fellow who felt his way along in a college course. They told him he had to write a book in order to keep in the work, and he didn't know what to say. He had to go and he had to do something, but when he did, he got it all wrong. And by getting it all wrong, ten years from there, he had to go back and correct his book and rewrite it, and nobody believed him because they were believing the first impression of what he made. And this is the position I'm in."

Look at the very first and earliest book. Look at the book that Paul was asked to write even before The Tiger's Fang. Look at the first chapter, first page!

(Quoting ... R.T. = Rebazar Tarzs)

"[...]

R.T.: "I want you to take down the following words as part of a discourse to give the world. You will act as a channel for this message. Are you ready?" [... .]"

Based on: Dialogues With The Master, Chap. One: A DIALOGUE ON GOD-REALIZATION, 2nd paragraph.

I want to make a point that that book was believed written in the 1950s and ask if D.W.T.M. was part of what Paul was talking about correcting? The fact that he [Paul] was also a channel for copying from numerous author's books, but credited Rebazar Tarzs instead?

My God Man! (Quoting Bones) People are still trying to correct this; and having to catch a lot of flack for doing so!

Since finding out a lot of things not previously known about Eckankar "source" materials, I always felt that Eckankar could capitalize upon the opportunity of telling the truth in spite of resistance form "group consciousness", or "group imagination" bent on interpreting Paul's "incorrect impressions" as some kind of "holy dogma", or "literal truth" (as if written in stone). And I thought that Eckankar could pursue the truth where it led and become something unique in the world of religions for doing so.

Here's a thought. Perhaps those old "wrong impressions" that need correcting - and the people who hold to them tightly - are like the "stumbling block" that needs to become the "stepping stone" for things to really move forward? I mean, What if this is a correct impression (hunch, intuition, etc.)?

[Etznab]

This was one of my favorite posts (click - show quoted text -), since it showed how things could change according to who was doing the writing.

[Etznab]

"[...] he [Paul] was also a channel for copying from numerous author's books, but credited Rebazar Tarzs instead? [... .]"

I want to be more specific by showing what leads me to think that? Examples include:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720$20D.W.T.M.

[Henosis Sage]

---

Very interesting Etznab.

I might add something another time, but here's a little quote from a
Scientology doco:

"You take on a matrix of thought that's not your own."

"You just don't see it happening to you. You justify so much. They constantly
tell you you have to think for yourself, and then they tell you exactly what
you have to think - or get out. And if you get out, there will be consequences."