Under the Banner of Heaven
Samo
of heaven. That it's true adherents will be swept up into the ethereal
worlds and on into timeless/spaceless Reality. Just like every other
religion or cult on the planet. Can all these religions be right? Can
they all be wrong?
"No Western nation is as religion-soaked as ours, where nine out of
ten of us love God and are loved by him in return. That mutual passion
centers our society and demands some understanding, if our doom-eager
society is to be understood at all." Harold Bloom, The American
Religion
"...a certain percentage of such fanatics will inevitably fixate on
matters of the spirit. The zealot may be outwardly motivated by the
anticipation of a great reward at the other end-wealth, fame, eternal
salvation-but the real recompense is probably the obsession itself.
This is no less true for the religious fanatic than for the fanatical
pianist or fanatical mountain climber. As a result of his (or her)
infatuation, existence overflows with purpose.
Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense
of self-assurance displaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his
pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are
soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the
last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through
immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.
Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating
pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be
especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing
toward religious pursuits. Faith is the very antithesis of reason,
injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when
religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly
off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no
match for the voice of God..."
Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven
Drmarman
>Eckankar makes a claim that it and it's devotees live under the banner
>of heaven. That it's true adherents will be swept up into the ethereal
>worlds and on into timeless/spaceless Reality. Just like every other
>religion or cult on the planet. Can all these religions be right? Can
>they all be wrong?
This is like saying that the world is filled with thousands of keys, all
claiming to open doors. Swept up in their visionary dreams, could they all be
right? Seems impossible, since they are all so different. Can there be a master
key that opens up all doors?
But is it the keys that matter, or even the doors? Unlocking doors is not such
a great thing. It is going through the doors and experiencing what is on the
other side that matters to me. That means personal experience is what it is
really about.
And we can find personal experience wherever we go, no matter which key we try.
So, I guess personal experience is the master key that opens all doors. <G>
More below...
Jon Krakauer's book is about a very extreme group of Mormons who still practice
bigamy. This is the group who took Elizabeth Smart as a child, because one of
the men wanted her as his wife.
When Jon started his research, according to what he says, he assumed there had
to be another side to their story. There had to be some kind of meaning behind
their beliefs. But the more he studied it, the more he realized they were
simply fanatic beyond reason. Everyone else was wrong, according to them, and
they were right. The subjugation of the girls was so extreme he felt he had to
write about it, as it was hard for him to believe such things were still taking
place in this country today.
This belief that everyone else is wrong and only they are right is one of the
key signs. That's in fact exactly why Jon started off assuming that even this
fanatic group had some truth that had been overlooked. But their own fanaticism
evoked an equal and opposite reaction within himself, you might say, causing
him to feel pretty strongly against them. In fact to the point that he felt
they were simply out and out wrong, while he was right. Jon recognized the
irony of this reaction, but still could not help but feel that way.
So, Samorez, this is exactly why I think continuing to build a sense of
polarization is the danger here.
Doug.
Samo
Doug, I don't have much time right now, but two (three) questions:
1. You've read the book? Oh, and have you read Johnson's book yet?
2. You refer to Jon Krakauer in the personal. Do you know him?
Orez
Samo
> drma...@aol.com (Drmarman) wrote in message news:<20031126022731...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>
> Doug, I don't have much time right now, but two (three) questions:
>
> 1. You've read the book? Oh, and have you read Johnson's book yet?
>
> 2. You refer to Jon Krakauer in the personal. Do you know him?
>
> Orez
Hey Doug, is it something I said? <g> These are hardly 60 Minutes questions...
Samo
> SAMOREZ WROTE:
> >Eckankar makes a claim that it and it's devotees live under the banner
> >of heaven. That it's true adherents will be swept up into the ethereal
> >worlds and on into timeless/spaceless Reality. Just like every other
> >religion or cult on the planet. Can all these religions be right? Can
> >they all be wrong?
>
> This is like saying that the world is filled with thousands of keys, all
> claiming to open doors. Swept up in their visionary dreams, could they all be
> right? Seems impossible, since they are all so different. Can there be a master
> key that opens up all doors?
Sure. Whatever religion you happen to belong to. <g>
> But is it the keys that matter, or even the doors? Unlocking doors is not such
> a great thing. It is going through the doors and experiencing what is on the
> other side that matters to me. That means personal experience is what it is
> really about.
Sorry. I think if you really believed this you would have left
Eckankar long ago. Sorry.
> And we can find personal experience wherever we go, no matter which key we try.
Yes, and? Do you consider all experiences equally educational?
> So, I guess personal experience is the master key that opens all doors. <G>
Jeez, I'm having a flashback to the 60's. "Everything is everything".
"Do your own thing." Dig it.
DOUG
> Jon Krakauer's book is about a very extreme group of Mormons who still practice
> bigamy. This is the group who took Elizabeth Smart as a child, because one of
> the men wanted her as his wife.
OREZ
That's part of the story, but not what the book is about. I'll ask you
again. Did you read the book? I just read it so it is fairly fresh in
my mind. He uses the vehicle of Mormonism to make some very
interesting points about ANY religious teaching and the folks
attracted to such. Can't take my word for it? Quote from page 333:
"The genesis of the book was a desire to grasp the nature of religious
belief."
I think that's clear even using your fluid standards.
> When Jon started his research, according to what he says, he assumed there had
> to be another side to their story. There had to be some kind of meaning behind
> their beliefs. But the more he studied it, the more he realized they were
> simply fanatic beyond reason. Everyone else was wrong, according to them, and
> they were right. The subjugation of the girls was so extreme he felt he had to
> write about it, as it was hard for him to believe such things were still taking > place in this country today.
Obviously, you haven't read the book. Or didn't read it with
comprehension which is hard to believe. Again, I quote from page 334:
"I was irresistibly drawn to write about Latter-day Saints not only
because I already knew something about their theology, and admired
much about their culture, but also because of the utterly unique
circumstances in which their religion was born: the Mormon Church was
founded a mere 173 years ago, in a literate society, in the age of the
printing press. As a consequence, the creation of what became a
worldwide faith was abundantly documented in firsthand accounts.
Thanks to the Mormons, we have been given an unprecedented opportunity
to appreciate-in astonishing detail-how an important religion came to
be.
I must confess that the book you are now reading isn't the book I set
out to write. As originally conceived, it was going to focus on the
uneasy, highly charged relationship between the LDS Church and its
past. I'd even come up with a title: History and Belief I intended to
explore the inner trials of spiritual thinkers who "walk in the
shadows of faith," as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin described it. How
does a critical mind reconcile scientific and historical truth with
religious doctrine? How does one sustain belief when confronted with
facts that appear to refute it? I was fascinated by the paradoxes that
reside at the intersection of doubt and faith, and I had a high regard
for congenital skeptics, like Teilhard, who somehow emerged from the
fray with their belief intact."
> This belief that everyone else is wrong and only they are right is one of the
> key signs. That's in fact exactly why Jon started off assuming that even this
> fanatic group had some truth that had been overlooked. But their own fanaticism
> evoked an equal and opposite reaction within himself, you might say, causing
> him to feel pretty strongly against them. In fact to the point that he felt
> they were simply out and out wrong, while he was right. Jon recognized the
> irony of this reaction, but still could not help but feel that way.
Was this paragraph a Revelation Doug because it sure isn't in the
book. Wow. Perhaps you could quote a few lines wherein Krakauer
"evoked an equal and opposite reaction within himself, you might say,
causing him to feel pretty strongly against them". I must have missed
it. In my mind, he simply told the story and presented the facts he
worked so hard to uncover. Perhaps you have an automatic aversion to
writers and journalists who do too thorough of a job and refuse to
stoop to mere supposition and speculation. Ahem.
He goes on to say..."D. Michael Quinn, the author of Early Mormonism
and the Magic World View, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, and
The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power...Quinn, currently
fifty-eight years old, is still a productive scholar at the height of
his intellectual powers...the influence of his prodigious work,
however, has been huge among Mormon historians. And no writer since
Fawn Brodie has provoked such intense condemnation from the LDS
General Authorities.
Quinn studied as an undergraduate at BYU, went on to receive a
doctorate from Yale, and then returned to BYU as an inspired professor
of history. He first aroused the ire of LDS leaders in 1981, when he
presented a now-famous lecture to the BYU Student History Association
titled "On Being a Mormon Historian," it was a response to a recent
attack on those academics, like Quinn, who dared to publish work than.
was critical of the church's official, extensively expurgated version
of Mormon history. "The tragic reality," he declared in his lecture,
"is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and
writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the
Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of
platitudes, half- truths, omissions, and plausible denials."
Oh my. Sound familar?
"Quinn argued, "A so-called 'faith-promoting' Church history which
conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually
undermines the faith of Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about
the problems from other sources. One of the most painful
demonstrations of that fact has been the continued spread of
unauthorized polygamy among the Latter-day Saints during the last
seventy-five years, despite the concerted efforts of Church leaders to
stop it."
So, there you have it. This is precisely what has happened and
continues to happen in official Eckankar since the revelations David
Lane published back in the 80's and now with Ford Johnson's
"Confessions of a God Seeker." In Eckankar's case they have a
professor and a Harvard (still Ivy League!) graduate disclosing the
ugly truth of Eckankar's founding and perpetuation and the resultant
"concerted efforts" and extreme denial by Eckankar's ruling class and
it's True Believers as exemplied by you, Doug Marmon.
You love to dialogue Doug. Don't you think these parallels are just
fascinating? Eckankar, being a 120 years younger than Mormonism gives
scholars and researchers an even closer look at WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
Of course, Mormonisn membership has now passed that of Judaism
worldwide with 11 million members and growing daily. In that regard,
it has little in common with Eckankar which has appx. .3% of that
number and is barely regarded as fringe much less mainstream.
> So, Samorez, this is exactly why I think continuing to build a sense of
> polarization is the danger here.
Please be serious. Denial automatically creates resistance and
polarization. But you knew that, didn't you Doug.
>
> Doug.
Samo
I guess Doug doesn't want to dialogue with me. :( I thought I was
behaving myself rather well.
Orez
Drmarman
keeping up with all of the messages.
I'll reply below.
>> > SAMOREZ WROTE:
>> > >Eckankar makes a claim that it and it's devotees live under the banner
>> > >of heaven. That it's true adherents will be swept up into the ethereal
>> > >worlds and on into timeless/spaceless Reality. Just like every other
>> > >religion or cult on the planet. Can all these religions be right? Can
>> > >they all be wrong?
>> >
>> > This is like saying that the world is filled with thousands of keys, all
>> > claiming to open doors. Swept up in their visionary dreams, could they
>all be
>> > right? Seems impossible, since they are all so different. Can there be a
>master
>> > key that opens up all doors?
>>
>> Sure. Whatever religion you happen to belong to. <g>
I think you know what religion I belong to. <G>
Perhaps the key metaphor was a little too obscure. The question I was asking
was - what's wrong with many religions claiming that they can raise their
followers up into heaven? Are you suggesting that only one should be able to do
so?
You seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong with many religions
claiming that they each raise their followers up into heaven. Or did I
misunderstand your point?
>>
>> > But is it the keys that matter, or even the doors? Unlocking doors is not
>such
>> > a great thing. It is going through the doors and experiencing what is on
>the
>> > other side that matters to me. That means personal experience is what it
>is
>> > really about.
>>
>> Sorry. I think if you really believed this you would have left
>> Eckankar long ago. Sorry.
If you don't want to believe me, why do you want to dialogue with me so much
that you would post this four times, asking me to respond?
And why would I be saying this if I didn't believe it? What's the point in
that?
>>
>> > And we can find personal experience wherever we go, no matter which key
>we try.
>>
>> Yes, and? Do you consider all experiences equally educational?
No. But I don't see what is wrong with many religions all claiming they bring
some benefits.
>>
>> > So, I guess personal experience is the master key that opens all doors.
><G>
>>
>> Jeez, I'm having a flashback to the 60's. "Everything is everything".
>> "Do your own thing." Dig it.
Right on. <G>
Yes, I read that part. However, I didn't read the whole book. My wife read it
and told me about it. I then read portions of it.
I also read an interview that Krakauer had about his book, why he wrote it,
etc. It was the interview comments he made that I was mainly referring to.
One of the things that stood out for me was that Krakauer really thought he was
going to find a group focused on spiritual truth growing into a religion. He
ended up getting so caught up in the extreme splinter group that was practicing
bigamy and serious abuse of women that it took over the story for him.
This quote is similar to the one in the interview, since he said the book did
not end up like he originally conceived. However, in the interview he seemed to
be more interest in the growth of a religion and the spiritually minded people
who are inspired enough to create a religion. He said that he was seriously
interested in trying to understand what it was that inspired this. He said he
was searching himself to understand this. However, the story ended up taking
him away from this into the extreme case of the splinter extremists groups.
>>
>> > This belief that everyone else is wrong and only they are right is one of
>the
>> > key signs. That's in fact exactly why Jon started off assuming that even
>this
>> > fanatic group had some truth that had been overlooked. But their own
>fanaticism
>> > evoked an equal and opposite reaction within himself, you might say,
>causing
>> > him to feel pretty strongly against them. In fact to the point that he
>felt
>> > they were simply out and out wrong, while he was right. Jon recognized
>the
>> > irony of this reaction, but still could not help but feel that way.
>>
>> Was this paragraph a Revelation Doug because it sure isn't in the
>> book. Wow. Perhaps you could quote a few lines wherein Krakauer
>> "evoked an equal and opposite reaction within himself, you might say,
>> causing him to feel pretty strongly against them". I must have missed
>> it. In my mind, he simply told the story and presented the facts he
>> worked so hard to uncover. Perhaps you have an automatic aversion to
>> writers and journalists who do too thorough of a job and refuse to
>> stoop to mere supposition and speculation. Ahem.
I was not attempting to quote Krakauer. I was just summarizing what struck me
about him and his book. In the interview he said that he tried hard to see the
matter from the side of the bigamists, and tried to stay open to their
perspective because he didn't want to become as extreme as they had become. He
didn't want to see them as bad, because it would be just like what they were
doing. However, he had to admit that after he found how bad the bigamy had
gotten and how abusive this splinter group was to their women and young girls,
that he finally realized he couldn't see what they were doing as anything but
wrong.
You would have enjoyed the interview. I read it in our local paper. I didn't
keep a copy, but there might be one on the Internet somewhere.
I see some parallels. I also see many of these parallels in most organizations.
For example, at work I am always pushing the executive group to look at our
mistakes honestly and try to learn from them. At first it was taken very
defensively. However, over time they got used to my questions and points and
came to realize that I was doing it because I cared. After many years of being
as tactful about it as I could, I've found that the group now does look at
these things without getting worked up about it, and it feels a whole lot
healthier.
I just don't think this is natural for many people. It is hard to step back and
look at ourselves and see our weaknesses. That's what the LDS leaders are
resisting, and yes I've seen the same thing in the ECKANKAR organization.
By the way, to answer your other question, I have Ford Johnson's book and I am
reading it, but haven't finished. So far I don't find it anywhere near the
situation with the Mormon history. Perhaps I haven't gotten far enough.
I've just finished where he describes Graham's journals. He said earlier in his
book that it should be read in sequence, since the parts built upon each other
and if one jumped ahead you could miss the earlier parts the led to the later
parts. However, for me, the whole deal with Graham's journals was bizzare. The
journals didn't strike me as even close to The Tiger's Fang, which Ford kept
comparing it to.
Ford really built up Graham's journals beforehand, and I have to admit I was
really expecting something significant based on what he was saying. Up until
that part, I found myself following Ford and enjoying what he was saying. After
that he lost me. I can't see why Graham's journals meant so much to him.
Yes, I can see that Darwin over-reacted to David Lane. And yes, I wish this
material was more openly discussed amongst ECKists without anyone feeling
nervous or defensive about it.
On the other hand, most ECKists I know don't see how it matters much to them.
They really don't care much about the history. They are interested in how the
spiritual path works for them in their daily lives. From a spiritual sense it
even matters less.
>>
>> > So, Samorez, this is exactly why I think continuing to build a sense of
>> > polarization is the danger here.
>>
>> Please be serious. Denial automatically creates resistance and
>> polarization. But you knew that, didn't you Doug.
>>
>> >
>> > Doug.
>
>
>I guess Doug doesn't want to dialogue with me. :( I thought I was
>behaving myself rather well.
>
>Orez
What? You thought I was saying No Mas? <G>
I find there is just as much denial amongst those supporting David Lane's
story. They don't seem to be able to relay the facts fairly, and when someone
points this out they get all bent out of shape. Same defensiveness. They feel
like giving in and admitting the errors in David's story means losing some kind
of game.
It's a common human issue. It doesn't mean anyone has a desease or anything,
like Ford tries to suggest about Paul. That's silly. Ford's own reluctance to
openly discuss these issues here on ARE shows how easy it is to see the mote in
the eye of another. We all do it.
What I find so strange is how strongly you feel on this, yet you don't seem
that concerned about the same behavior amongst detractors. Why is that?
The way I see it, we are all doing fine. We're all learning. And making
mistakes is one of the best ways of learning, so I don't see anything wrong
with making mistakes. It is learning from them that is toughest.
Doug.
Philam
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20031208012314...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> By the way, to answer your other question, I have Ford Johnson's book and
I am
> reading it, but haven't finished. So far I don't find it anywhere near the
> situation with the Mormon history. Perhaps I haven't gotten far enough.
>
> I've just finished where he describes Graham's journals. He said earlier
in his
> book that it should be read in sequence, since the parts built upon each
other
> and if one jumped ahead you could miss the earlier parts the led to the
later
> parts. However, for me, the whole deal with Graham's journals was bizzare.
The
> journals didn't strike me as even close to The Tiger's Fang, which Ford
kept
> comparing it to.
>
I have say this too the first time i read graham's journal.
But read your own journal and you will see one thing i notice with my own
journal.
I see that the tiger's fang is not a real history, it is not a same with my
own journal and graham's journal and even yours.
It is a novel mix with paul's inner experiences and all outer words express
by others masters.
But the real thing this journal do is this: what is your value for your own
experience ?
> Ford really built up Graham's journals beforehand, and I have to admit I
was
> really expecting something significant based on what he was saying. Up
until
> that part, I found myself following Ford and enjoying what he was saying.
After
> that he lost me. I can't see why Graham's journals meant so much to him.
>
Read again without any opinions.
Contemplate and read again. You will see that Graham's journal mean a lot of
thing.
read your own journal and you will see that your mind is corrupted by the
illusions of your visions you see the LEM.
It is hard to accept this.
> Yes, I can see that Darwin over-reacted to David Lane. And yes, I wish
this
> material was more openly discussed amongst ECKists without anyone feeling
> nervous or defensive about it.
>
> On the other hand, most ECKists I know don't see how it matters much to
them.
> They really don't care much about the history. They are interested in how
the
> spiritual path works for them in their daily lives. From a spiritual sense
it
> even matters less.
>
The questions is this: how many eckist think really the path works for them
?
How many non-eckists think their life run well without don't know eckankar ?
The first exercise who do woth eckankar is visualise the picture of LEM.
Chant hu and visualize again the picture of master. Do you don't think that
this method give the experience that the LEM can do one thing in your life ?
You give to this form the power to come in your dream and do what you hope.
If you ask eckist, they will say that they are problems and don't have the
solution to resolve them. When they see RESAS, they tell them to chant hu
and to give their problem to mahanta. The reality is they are not a lot of
eckist who think the path run well if they compare really with her life.
Im sure for this because i meet a lot of eckist who you think teh are well
and when you speak a long time with them, you see that they are not
different with the same persons who have problems in life.
Eckankar bring to eckist one thing: let mahanta resolve your problem.
Sincerely.
Philam.
Sean
"Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:br2die$gic$1...@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
So what things does it mean to you Philam?
Michael Wallace
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote in message
news:tIKdnVonPLY...@inspired.net.au...
I meant to me that Graham was not so bright ... He did not even pick up the
"Phoo Lin" quip, and took it all seriously.
It also means to me that Ford Johsnon DID pick this up, and was playing with
the poor sap.
Love
Michael
>
>
>
>
Philam
"Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
newscache$rovmph$k5b$1...@news.veridas.net...
Michael, don't play this game.
Twit.......shell translate this 2 words in french and you will see what he
mean.
Philam.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
cher
And you're the sucker born that moment, then? <smile> They say there's
one every moment, so it must be nice to know your niche! <grin>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Philam
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3FD6165E...@worldnet.att.net...
Miss Gondole, don't came to this dialogue.
I show to Michael that Phoo lin or Foollin .... Twitchell or Twit shell
don't means anything.
Do you know what WAH Z means in swahili ?
But Miss Gondole for you means a lot of thing...looool
Philam.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
cher
Well while you try to make a joke out of something apparently only you
get, the rest of the group is sitting here wondering why you don't
understand that the joke is on anyone who takes Grahams name as anything
but a direct joke. You can make all these silly games out of anyone
elses name, but at least see what sort of mind game graham and ford are
laying on you and how gullible one has to be to buy into it! It's all so
staged and obvious. Read the book, it's all right there. He uses what he
blames Paul of doing, and it's right there in print! He's saying and
doing it, one in the same. If you don't see that, then fine. He needs
people like you to pay is tax bills. <smile>
> Philam.
>
Philam
May be Ford needs people like me to pay his tax bill, why not ?
But i know one thing, with member's donations (include mine), eckankar pay
HK salary and all expenses..etc. This it is not the future but the ici et
maintenant.
heeee Cher, tell me if you know what WAH Z means in swahili ?
Philam
cher
Ever check to see what ford charges his members of the Higher
Consciousness group? Hmmm? Apparently not! I'm just greatful I don't pay
your salary! I'd be asking for my money back. Maybe it's your karma? A
bit of that something for nothing means you get what you pay for.
cher
cher wrote:
>
> Philam wrote:
<snip>
> > Philam
Sean
Philam,
I asked a straight question, maybe you missed it. Here it is again
PHILAM:
You will see that Graham's journal mean a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > thing.
> > >
SEAN:
Ken
Sean wrote...
If Philam chooses not to answer you Sean, that says as much as
anything he could say. Perhaps he's taking a page out of the
Standard Habitually Idiotic Troll manual.
(In other words, he's just giving us a bunch of S.H.I.T).
cher
So that's the name of the organization behind all these innane posts! I
knew these people couldn't come up with this stuff themselves. <wink>
Philam
I don't see your post. Sorry.
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
FNqdnR6ADYP...@inspired.net.au...
My answer is in a post i write to Doug
Doug write:
"The journals didn't strike me as even close to The Tiger's Fang, which
Ford
kept comparing it to."
And i write:
I have say this too the first time i read graham's journal.
But read your own journal and you will see one thing i notice with my own
journal.
I see that the tiger's fang is not a real history, it is not a same with my
own journal and graham's journal and even yours.
It is a novel mix with paul's inner experiences and all outer words express
by others masters.
But the real thing this journal do is this: what is your value for your own
experience ?
Read again without any opinions.
Contemplate and read again. You will see that Graham's journal mean a lot of
thing.
read your own journal and you will see that your mind is corrupted by the
illusions of your visions you see the LEM.
It is hard to accept this.
Philam.
Philam
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
riJBb.176045$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
looooool, Ken, im surprised to see you write this.
I think when i read your post in this newsgroup, you are an open mind not a
close mind even if im in error in my analysis.
But i will answers in the same way i answers Sean.
Doug write:
"The journals didn't strike me as even close to The Tiger's Fang, which
Ford
kept comparing it to."
And i write:
I have say this too the first time i read graham's journal.
But read your own journal and you will see one thing i notice with my own
journal.
I see that the tiger's fang is not a real history, it is not a same with my
own journal and graham's journal and even yours.
It is a novel mix with paul's inner experiences and all outer words express
by others masters.
But the real thing this journal do is this: what is your value for your own
experience ?
Read again without any opinions.
Contemplate and read again. You will see that Graham's journal mean a lot of
thing.
read your own journal and you will see that your mind is corrupted by the
illusions of your visions you see the LEM.
It is hard to accept this.
Philam.
>
>
Philam
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3FD7617E...@worldnet.att.net...
Cher, how are you ? thine i hope.
Why you don't answers my question ?
What is a meaning of WAH Z in swahili ?
Do you know this, YES or NO ?
Philam.
cher
>
> Hi,
>
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3FD7617E...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> > > Sean wrote...
> > > >
> > > > Philam,
> > > >
> > > > I asked a straight question, maybe you missed it. Here it is again
> > > >
> > > > PHILAM:
> > > > You will see that Graham's journal mean a
> > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > SEAN:
> > > > > > > So what things does it mean to you Philam?
> > >
> > > If Philam chooses not to answer you Sean, that says as much as
> > > anything he could say. Perhaps he's taking a page out of the
> > > Standard Habitually Idiotic Troll manual.
> > >
> > > (In other words, he's just giving us a bunch of S.H.I.T).
> >
> > So that's the name of the organization behind all these innane posts! I
> > knew these people couldn't come up with this stuff themselves. <wink>
>
> Cher, how are you ? thine i hope.
As if you actually care! LOL......
> Why you don't answers my question ?
I did!
> What is a meaning of WAH Z in swahili ?
>
> Do you know this, YES or NO ?
Obviously whatever it is, you're dying to tell us all.
> Philam.
Sean
OK, thanks.
>
Michael Wallace
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
news:riJBb.176045$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I suspect you are right, Sri Ken <G> Philam is stirring the pot, and it
ain't smelling good... Mabye he should stick to smoking it!
Love
Michael
>
>
Ken
"Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> wrote ...
>
> > > SEAN:
> > > > > > So what things does it mean to you Philam?
> >
> >
> > If Philam chooses not to answer you Sean, that says as much as
> > anything he could say. Perhaps he's taking a page out of the
> > Standard Habitually Idiotic Troll manual.
> >
> > (In other words, he's just giving us a bunch of S.H.I.T).
> >
>
>
> I suspect you are right, Sri Ken <G> Philam is stirring the pot, and it
> ain't smelling good... Mabye he should stick to smoking it!
Don't know about THAT, but based on his answer it looks like I was
right.
Ken
"Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> Hi,
>
> "Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> riJBb.176045$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Sean wrote...
> > >
> > > Philam,
> > >
> > > I asked a straight question, maybe you missed it. Here it is again
> > >
> > > PHILAM:
> > > You will see that Graham's journal mean a
> > > > > lot
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > SEAN:
> > > > > > So what things does it mean to you Philam?
> >
> >
> > If Philam chooses not to answer you Sean, that says as much as
> > anything he could say. Perhaps he's taking a page out of the
> > Standard Habitually Idiotic Troll manual.
> >
> > (In other words, he's just giving us a bunch of S.H.I.T).
> >
>
> looooool, Ken, im surprised to see you write this.
> I think when i read your post in this newsgroup, you are an open mind not a
> close mind even if im in error in my analysis.
You know Philam, having an open mind doesn't mean accepting every
silly little thing that anyone might say.
> But i will answers in the same way i answers Sean.
>
> Doug write:
> "The journals didn't strike me as even close to The Tiger's Fang, which
> Ford
> kept comparing it to."
> And i write:
> I have say this too the first time i read graham's journal.
> But read your own journal and you will see one thing i notice with my own
> journal.
> I see that the tiger's fang is not a real history, it is not a same with my
> own journal and graham's journal and even yours.
> It is a novel mix with paul's inner experiences and all outer words express
> by others masters.
> But the real thing this journal do is this: what is your value for your own
> experience ?
> Read again without any opinions.
> Contemplate and read again. You will see that Graham's journal mean a lot of
> thing.
> read your own journal and you will see that your mind is corrupted by the
> illusions of your visions you see the LEM.
> It is hard to accept this.
You are telling others what their journals mean without your ever even
reading them, let alone meeting the individual. Do you see how you are
setting yourself up as an expert on the personal subjective experiences
of others? ALL others in fact, who have ever been on the path of
Eckankar.
Do you know what hubris means, Philam?
Philam
You know, im not a perfect. I can be in errors also. Doug say you learning
by doing the errors. :-)
Im learning.
Can you answer me this question : what value you give to the inner form of
the LEM ?
> Do you know what hubris means, Philam?
>
You know that i dont speak well english, tell me the meaning in french if it
is possible.
Sincerely
Philam.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ken
"Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote ...
> > You are telling others what their journals mean without your ever even
> > reading them, let alone meeting the individual. Do you see how you are
> > setting yourself up as an expert on the personal subjective experiences
> > of others? ALL others in fact, who have ever been on the path of
> > Eckankar.
> >
> My english is too poor and i can make mistakes.
> You know, im not a perfect. I can be in errors also. Doug say you learning
> by doing the errors. :-)
> Im learning.
I agree, mistakes are one of the most effective ways to learn.
> Can you answer me this question : what value you give to the inner form of
> the LEM ?
After you answer my questions first.
> > Do you know what hubris means, Philam?
> >
>
> You know that i dont speak well english, tell me the meaning in french if it
> is possible.
You're doing a much better job than I could do in French. Look it up
in a good English/French dictionary.
@aloha.net Rich
"Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote
> You know that i dont speak well english, tell me the meaning in french
if it
> is possible.
Try using these Philam.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
http://www.english-to-french-translation.com/
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sean
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:brbop...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote
>
> > You know that i dont speak well english, tell me the meaning in french
> if it
> > is possible.
>
> Try using these Philam.
> http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn
> http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
> http://www.english-to-french-translation.com/
>
You need to change your surname from Smith to Links, Mr Rich Links! <g>
You're a walking internet version of the Library of Congress rich!
cher
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
> news:brbop...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > You know that i dont speak well english, tell me the meaning in
french
> > if it
> > > is possible.
> >
> > Try using these Philam.
> > http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn
> > http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
> > http://www.english-to-french-translation.com/
> >
>
>
> You need to change your surname from Smith to Links, Mr Rich Links!
<g>
>
> You're a walking internet version of the Library of Congress rich!
I'm just good at saving and ordering bookmarks,<G> and in this case
supplementing that with an easy Google search.
Sean
>
> "Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote
>
> > "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
> > news:brbop...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > "Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > You know that i dont speak well english, tell me the meaning in
> french
> > > if it
> > > > is possible.
> > >
> > > Try using these Philam.
> > > http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn
> > > http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
> > > http://www.english-to-french-translation.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> > You need to change your surname from Smith to Links, Mr Rich Links!
> <g>
> >
> > You're a walking internet version of the Library of Congress rich!
>
> I'm just good at saving and ordering bookmarks,<G> and in this case
> supplementing that with an easy Google search.
Me thinks you've done this sort of thing before. Watch the typos though,
"just" should have been "very"
<g>
@aloha.net Rich
Sean
<G>
Where'd we be if not for Cook?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?pp/ils:@FILREQ(@field(SUBJ+@od1(Hawaii
ans--Social+life--1750-1780+))+@FIELD(COLLID+cph))
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <not_s...@all.com> wrote
> Where'd we be if not for Cook?
We'd have been years behind in our knowledge of world geography, culture
and biology. And, he did it _all_ in a small, very slow *sailboat*.;-)
Needless to say I'm a big fan of his.
Michael Wallace
Yes... He's an ASS... an Attention Seeking Soul...
I don't bother to read him anymore, but haven't yet gotten to the Block
Sender list.
Love
Michael
>
>
>
>
Philam
"Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
newscache$nnwtph$8s1$1...@news.veridas.net...
>
> "Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
> news:no4Cb.436466$0v4.20...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> wrote ...
> > >
> > > > > SEAN:
> > > > > > > > So what things does it mean to you Philam?
> > > >
> > > >
> > Ken:
> > > > If Philam chooses not to answer you Sean, that says as much as
> > > > anything he could say. Perhaps he's taking a page out of the
> > > > Standard Habitually Idiotic Troll manual.
> > > >
> > > > (In other words, he's just giving us a bunch of S.H.I.T).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I suspect you are right, Sri Ken <G> Philam is stirring the pot, and
it
> > > ain't smelling good... Mabye he should stick to smoking it!
> >
> >
> > Don't know about THAT, but based on his answer it looks like I was
> > right.
>
> Yes... He's an ASS... an Attention Seeking Soul...
>
looool.
> I don't bother to read him anymore, but haven't yet gotten to the Block
> Sender list.
>
Go to bed. Close you eyes and don't meet the censor in your dream because im
this censor.
:-)
i think that it is not necessary to answer you in the post "spiritual
experience".
Philam.
> Love
> Michael
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Drmarman
it.
PHILAM WROTE:
>Hi,
>
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> By the way, to answer your other question, I have Ford Johnson's book and
>I am
>> reading it, but haven't finished. So far I don't find it anywhere near the
>> situation with the Mormon history. Perhaps I haven't gotten far enough.
>>
>> I've just finished where he describes Graham's journals. He said earlier
>in his
>> book that it should be read in sequence, since the parts built upon each
>other
>> and if one jumped ahead you could miss the earlier parts the led to the
>later
>> parts. However, for me, the whole deal with Graham's journals was bizzare.
>The
>> journals didn't strike me as even close to The Tiger's Fang, which Ford
>kept
>> comparing it to.
>>
> PHILAM WROTE:
>I have say this too the first time i read graham's journal.
>But read your own journal and you will see one thing i notice with my own
>journal.
>I see that the tiger's fang is not a real history, it is not a same with my
>own journal and graham's journal and even yours.
>It is a novel mix with paul's inner experiences and all outer words express
>by others masters.
>But the real thing this journal do is this: what is your value for your own
>experience ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, I have boxes and boxes of my journals and they don't remind me of
Graham's journals.
However, I agree with you that The Tiger's Fang is not a journal. It is a story
that shares the inner truths that we can gain for ourselves. If the only thing
that Paul put in his book was an history of his personal experiences, it would
not be anywhere as powerful as the book he wrote.
So much of what Graham wrote sounded like inner beings coming to him and
telling him what was true or false. This is a very low level experience and not
even close to Self-Realization and God-Realization.
Graham even at one point is listening to Sugmad talking to him. We all know
that Sugmad does not speak to us in words or even in thoughts, so what do you
make of that?
I would much rather have fiction filled with the wisdom and spiritual truth of
The Tiger's Fang than a journal of beings telling someone what to believe. This
is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are called
the Silent Ones.
So, the value of the experience is what we learn from it.
By the way, I believe the fact that Graham was given the spiritual name, Phoo
Lin, which sounds like Foolin' in his own english language, is a sign of what
he is really experiencing. Comparing what Wah Z means in swahili is not the
same thing, since english is Graham's language and thus the word Foolin' means
exactly that to him. What it means in his own language is what matters.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Ford really built up Graham's journals beforehand, and I have to admit I
>was
>> really expecting something significant based on what he was saying. Up
>until
>> that part, I found myself following Ford and enjoying what he was saying.
>After
>> that he lost me. I can't see why Graham's journals meant so much to him.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Read again without any opinions.
>Contemplate and read again. You will see that Graham's journal mean a lot of
>thing.
>read your own journal and you will see that your mind is corrupted by the
>illusions of your visions you see the LEM.
>It is hard to accept this.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, I was very open about reading it and in fact looked forward to reading
what Graham had written, especially after Ford made it sound so wonderful.
I always try to read everyone's writings from their state of consciousness so
that I can see what they mean by it and where they are coming from.
For example, I can see from what Graham wrote that he is not describing
experiences that are as physical as they sound. He describes physical features
but is talking about a spiritual experience.
I led a Soul Travel class once where I asked people to set aside their
imagination and get at the real experience of Soul. Even the long time ECKists
had a hard time, since they had mistakenly believed their imagination was the
same as Soul Travel. It is not.
Setting aside our opinions and preconceptions is what Soul Travel is all about.
However, I can see in Graham's journals more of his previous teaching under
Sant Ji, than the ECK wisdom. That is in fact one of the reasons for his seeing
the Masters as outer beings he must listen to.
I spent a lot of time with Sant Ji's students and recognize that same pattern.
It is one of biggest differences between ECKists and followers of Sant Ji.
I don't find anyone's spiritual teaching hard to accept. I enjoy all of it just
as it is. However, I'm surprised that Ford could not point out to Graham what
his journal experiences were about or how to work with them.
> DOUG WROTE:
>> Yes, I can see that Darwin over-reacted to David Lane. And yes, I wish
>this
>> material was more openly discussed amongst ECKists without anyone feeling
>> nervous or defensive about it.
>>
>> On the other hand, most ECKists I know don't see how it matters much to
>them.
>> They really don't care much about the history. They are interested in how
>the
>> spiritual path works for them in their daily lives. From a spiritual sense
>it
>> even matters less.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>The questions is this: how many eckist think really the path works for them
>?
>How many non-eckists think their life run well without don't know eckankar ?
>The first exercise who do woth eckankar is visualise the picture of LEM.
>Chant hu and visualize again the picture of master. Do you don't think that
>this method give the experience that the LEM can do one thing in your life ?
>You give to this form the power to come in your dream and do what you hope.
>If you ask eckist, they will say that they are problems and don't have the
>solution to resolve them. When they see RESAS, they tell them to chant hu
>and to give their problem to mahanta. The reality is they are not a lot of
>eckist who think the path run well if they compare really with her life.
>Im sure for this because i meet a lot of eckist who you think teh are well
>and when you speak a long time with them, you see that they are not
>different with the same persons who have problems in life.
>Eckankar bring to eckist one thing: let mahanta resolve your problem.
>
>Sincerely.
>Philam.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, there are many who will only see the outer teachings, like you are
talking about, and never make the real inner connection. If this is the case, I
suggest you seek out one who can help you inwardly and outwardly to gain the
inner teachings.
Do not settle for anything else. If you desire it enough, you will find the
help will come to you.
This is beyond what we put into it through our imagination. Our imagination
plays a role, but it is only a part of it.
For example, there is a big difference between two adults who love each other
and a teenager who falls in love with a famous movie star. The teenager is only
filling themselves with imagination. The two adults know it is real love
because they get back more than they give. It is more than just their own
imagination. It is a living thing very different from what they might expect.
In fact one of the tests is whether the experience is exactly like you might
expect or wish for, or does it take you far from anything you expected. Ford
even asks Graham this questions once, and it is clear that Graham experienced
what he was already thinking and expecting.
Sometimes the inner teachings recede from a teaching. That means the true
connection withdraws and we must work extra hard to go within to find the
connection. There is a reason for this. Those who refuse to accept anything
less and refuse to give up will find what they are looking for. If they ask
inwardly for help from the Inner Masters, they will also gain help. Or you can
ask for help from Life, Itself, but it is more difficult when it is impersonal.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Doug.
>> >>
>> >> > So, Samorez, this is exactly why I think continuing to build a sense
>of
>> >> > polarization is the danger here.
>> >>
>> >> Please be serious. Denial automatically creates resistance and
>> >> polarization. But you knew that, didn't you Doug.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Doug.
>> >
>> >
>> >I guess Doug doesn't want to dialogue with me. :( I thought I was
>> >behaving myself rather well.
>> >
>> >Orez
>>
>> What? You thought I was saying No Mas? <G>
>>
>> I find there is just as much denial amongst those supporting David Lane's
>> story. They don't seem to be able to relay the facts fairly, and when
>someone
>> points this out they get all bent out of shape. Same defensiveness. They
>feel
>> like giving in and admitting the errors in David's story means losing some
>kind
>> of game.
>>
>> It's a common human issue. It doesn't mean anyone has a desease or
>anything,
>> like Ford tries to suggest about Paul. That's silly. Ford's own reluctance
>to
>> openly discuss these issues here on ARE shows how easy it is to see the
>mote in
>> the eye of another. We all do it.
>>
>> What I find so strange is how strongly you feel on this, yet you don't
>seem
>> that concerned about the same behavior amongst detractors. Why is that?
>>
>> The way I see it, we are all doing fine. We're all learning. And making
>> mistakes is one of the best ways of learning, so I don't see anything
>wrong
>> with making mistakes. It is learning from them that is toughest.
>>
>> Doug.
Philam
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20031229041321...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Hi,
I don't agree with you.
It is the same with all Paul Twitchell books, Inners beings instruct him
what he can think for this or not. Paul have the ability to take this an
history. He change the words he hear in inner to the words he appreciated in
outer.
H.K 's inner experiences are the same, they are always inner beings who
instruct him by false or true.
All inner experiences in the high level plan will take the form in the
duality world as true or false.
Your argument to say that because inner being tell him what it is true or
false means that his experiences is low level experience is false.
> Graham even at one point is listening to Sugmad talking to him. We all
know
> that Sugmad does not speak to us in words or even in thoughts, so what do
you
> make of that?
>
1.Who say that Sugmad don't speak to us in words or even in thought ? Why ?
2. This is grahams esperience, he say:
"During contemplation, a voice spoke to me, it was not a voice as spoken in
the physical world .....I do not want to make the claim that the Sugmad
speaks to me directly... Paul Twitchell has written..."here we can
communicate...have direct contact with God...we will remember ...as can be
brought within the compass of brain activity."
Do you read this honestly ?
> I would much rather have fiction filled with the wisdom and spiritual
truth of
> The Tiger's Fang than a journal of beings telling someone what to believe.
>
The tiger fang's is the same.
All esoteric writtings are based on beliefs.
Only if seeker have experience, this become seekers'belief that we know this
as a knowgniness.
>This
> is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are
>called
> the Silent Ones.
>
Silent Ones... lets see H.K experiences in Soul Travelers of Far country
(page 132):"the Silent One spoke....take one swallon, only one..........."
They are Silent or not ?
let's see graham's experience, 1rst meetting with Silents Ones: 28 march
1996 and the second meeting:14 august 1998.
In this 2 experiences i don't see the difference with H.K experiences.
After this, the experiences with Silent Ones give him a challenge with his
inner experiences with eck masters, Silent Ones and all P.T beliefs and
others Masters to bring him to an other view of reality.
Why he become aware for this experiences ?
How many Eckists see the same experiences and take this to an kal
experiences or test of faithfulness ?
What is the reality of our experiences ?
> So, the value of the experience is what we learn from it.
>
Yes, but we are illusionned by what you think of all beliefs P.T put inside
our minds and H.K continues.
> By the way, I believe the fact that Graham was given the spiritual name,
>Phoo
> Lin, which sounds like Foolin' in his own english language, is a sign of
>what
> he is really experiencing.
>
Who is not fooling of God ?
You accept H.K experience after his God realisation as normal and you think
that Phoo Lin, Graham spiritual name, is a sign of what he is really
experiencing.
>Comparing what Wah Z means in swahili is not
>the
> same thing, since english is Graham's language and thus the word Foolin'
>means
> exactly that to him. What it means in his own language is what matters.
>
Noooo, Doug, don't search the reasons to kill graham's experiences.
I don't know that Wah Z is H.K language or H.K is chinese, the same to
Peddar Zasq or Dap Ren.
Noo Doug, please be sincere, wait graham's book before you critisize his
spiritual name.
Peux-tu me dire ce qu'il en ait des expériences de Paul Twitchell ? Les
critiques de Paul Twitchell ne sont elles pas basées sur ses propres
experiences spirituelles ?
Les bases d'Eckankar sont liées essentiellement sur des expériences
intérieures. Sais-tu réellement si Sugmad a désigné qui que ce soit comme
son agent direct sur le plan physique en qualité d'Harold klemp?
Harold Klemp a été désigné LEM parce qu'il a eu des expériences intérieures
montrant ses capacités intérieures.
J'estime alors que les expériences de Graham doivent être considérées de la
même manière que nous considérons les expériences d'Harold Klemp sauf que
dans le cas de Graham, ces expériences montrenet une autre facette
d'Eckankar pas du tout plaisante.
N'est-ce pas en cela que son nom spiritual me semble charmant car il faut
être fou pour arriver aux conclusions qu'il démontre.
Comme il a dit, il ne prétend pas être un nouveau mahanta donc son nom
spiritual me semble encore une démonstration de ce qu'il a à accomplir dans
cette vie présente.
Can you say to me what it is for Paul Twitchell's experiences? Criticisms of
Paul Twitchell are based on its own spiritual experiences. The bases of
Eckankar are primarily dependent on inner experiences. Do you really know if
Sugmad indicated anyone like its direct agent on the physical plan? I
estimate the experiences of Graham must be considered in the same manner
that we consider the experiences of Harold Klemp except that in the case of
Graham, these experiences show another side of Eckankar not at all pleasant.
His spiritual name seems to me charming because it is necessary to be foolin
to show another side of eckankar. Like he said, he does not claim to be new
a mahanta his spiritual name seems to me to be a demonstration of what he
has to achieve in this life present in eckankar.
> I led a Soul Travel class once where I asked people to set aside their
> imagination and get at the real experience of Soul. Even the long time
>ECKists
> had a hard time, since they had mistakenly believed their imagination was
>the
> same as Soul Travel. It is not.
>
I know that and I can only say that the experiences of Graham are closer to
than I live as experiencess than that of Paul Twitchell who, for me, is an
imaginary construction.
>ase, I
> suggest you seek out one who can help you inwardly and outwardly to gain
>he
> inner teachings.
>
Don't worry, i know how to go in inner.
> Do not settle for anything else. If you desire it enough, you will find
>he
> help will come to you.
>
> This is beyond what we put into it through our imagination. Our
>magination
> plays a role, but it is only a part of it.
>
> For example, there is a big difference between two adults who love each
>ther
> and a teenager who falls in love with a famous movie star. The teenager is
only
> filling themselves with imagination. The two adults know it is real love
> because they get back more than they give. It is more than just their own
> imagination. It is a living thing very different from what they might
expect.
>
> In fact one of the tests is whether the experience is exactly like you
might
> expect or wish for, or does it take you far from anything you expected.
>
You do not think that the experiences of Graham made exploded the myth of
the line of the spiritual ecks masters or Silents Ones or quite simply the
vision of what eckankar will be on the physical level. I am always surprised
that Sugmad sends via Rebazars Tarzs a message of this in Soul Travelers of
Far Country (page131)"Don' t make the error of trying to rule the universes,
the worlds of god, by yourself-by your own dictates." Why this warning? Did
Sugmad see something in the future in the way in which H.K will running
Eckankar?
>Ford
> even asks Graham this questions once, and it is clear that Graham
>experienced
> what he was already thinking and expecting.
>
?? I don't see this in Graham experiences.
> Sometimes the inner teachings recede from a teaching. That means the true
> connection withdraws and we must work extra hard to go within to find the
> connection. There is a reason for this. Those who refuse to accept
anything
> less and refuse to give up will find what they are looking for. If they
ask
> inwardly for help from the Inner Masters, they will also gain help. Or you
>can
> ask for help from Life, Itself, but it is more difficult when it is
>impersonal.
>
You want to speak about the need for having an Inner Master?
The question is this one: what is the real capacity of an Inner Master? What
is the reality of this inner form ?
Sincerely
Philam
Drmarman
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Hi,
>
>I don't agree with you.
>It is the same with all Paul Twitchell books, Inners beings instruct him
>what he can think for this or not. Paul have the ability to take this an
>history. He change the words he hear in inner to the words he appreciated in
>outer.
>H.K 's inner experiences are the same, they are always inner beings who
>instruct him by false or true.
>All inner experiences in the high level plan will take the form in the
>duality world as true or false.
>Your argument to say that because inner being tell him what it is true or
>false means that his experiences is low level experience is false.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, I don't think you understood what I was saying. I will try again.
First, I agree that there are plenty of stories in Paul's books and some in
Harold's books where he describes beings coming and telling him something. I
agree with that. From that standpoint, it is somewhat similar to Graham's
journal.
What I was saying is that it seemed to me that this was the only thing you
could find in Graham's journal experiences. If that was all that Paul
described, then I think it would be no better than Graham's journal.
In the Tiger's Fang, Paul is not recording an historical record of his inner
experience. He is writing a story that comes out of his inner experiences but
is something that has meaning to others. He says this in the introduction to
the Tiger's Fang. Therefore, what Paul is writing is completely his own words
(or as we can see in a few paragraphs he has borrowed the words of Walter
Russell.) This shows us that Paul is writing from his own understanding. Paul
is picking and choosing the words to describe what he wants to say.
Paul is telling a story that attempts to capture the spiritual wisdom of the
inner teachings. That's the point of his book. He is describing the inner
journey with the Master because this is a part of the path and how the
teachings are gained. He is describing a universal part of the path, not just
his personal experience.
Graham is only describing his experiences. This is a big difference.
That was the point I was making.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Graham even at one point is listening to Sugmad talking to him. We all
>know
>> that Sugmad does not speak to us in words or even in thoughts, so what do
>you
>> make of that?
> PHILAM WROTE:
>1.Who say that Sugmad don't speak to us in words or even in thought ? Why ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
This is a basic teaching of ECKANKAR. However, this is not something anyone
should take my word or ECKANKAR's word on.
The Sugmad is so far beyond the mind that IT does not communicate in anything
that approaches language. The divine love we feel is Sugmad's outflow. This is
the meaning of The Word. It is the spiritual current that flows from the Sugmad
into the worlds to lift Soul. It is like a current of love and grace.
That is Sugmad's voice, you might say. Anything that approaches language or
thoughts comes not from Sugmad but from the lower worlds.
Of course, words and thoughts can carry some of the love of the Sugmad, but
they should never be taken as Sugmad speaking to us. As Paul has pointed out,
this is a mistake amongst many who do not really know. They think God is
talking to them, but Sugmad doesn't communicate in this way. As Paul said, this
is sign that the person is fooling themselves as to what they are experiencing.
This is a well known teaching set down by Paul over 30 years ago. I'm surprised
that Ford didn't recognize the problem.
>2. This is grahams esperience, he say:
>"During contemplation, a voice spoke to me, it was not a voice as spoken in
>the physical world .....I do not want to make the claim that the Sugmad
>speaks to me directly... Paul Twitchell has written..."here we can
>communicate...have direct contact with God...we will remember ...as can be
>brought within the compass of brain activity."
>
>Do you read this honestly ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
What do you think that Paul means when he says we can have direct contact with
God? Do you think that this will be in the form of God speaking to us to tell
us our mission or teach us a lesson?
No, the experience of Sugmad never comes this way.
This is exactly what Paul warned against. People get an inflated idea of who
they are because God came and talked to them. This is a red warning flag that
the person is fooling themselves. This is something that has happened over and
over again, but the person should know that the Sugmad never speaks to us in
words or thoughts.
Yes, we can have direct contact, but it never comes in the form of a God
talking to us or telling us something. This is a lower world experience, not a
higher world experience.
What I am trying to say is that there are lots of things like this that show me
that Graham is misunderstanding his experiences.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I would much rather have fiction filled with the wisdom and spiritual
>truth of
>> The Tiger's Fang than a journal of beings telling someone what to believe.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>The tiger fang's is the same.
>All esoteric writtings are based on beliefs.
>Only if seeker have experience, this become seekers'belief that we know this
>as a knowgniness.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Paul is writing from his own understanding. He does not say anything even close
to what Graham wrote like this:
"This experience took place on October 5, 1994, but I was reluctant to write it
down, because of what it implied. Now I feel I have no choice but to put it
down, as I've felt uncomfortable for not doing so...."
After this the Sugmad speaks to Graham, saying at the end, "KNOW THAT I THE
SUGMAD HAVE SPOKEN"
Then Graham says again, "I did not want to put it down, but I have had no
choice. Not to do so, I now feel would be a lack of faith. With my former
Master, Sant Ajaib Singh Ji, I had the same experience as Sri Paul Twitchell
when He was taken to see the SUGMAD by Sri Rebazar Tarzs. In this experience, I
was allowed to speak to the giant form that had manifested (as described by
Paulji) on different occassions."
What is this feeling that he has no choice? That's not how spiritual growth
takes place. Spiritual growth is all about our choice. We are never forced into
anything, nor are we given a mission by some beings, like Graham describes.
Yes, we might have visits from Masters and beings who help us with what we
decide to do, but it is all our choice. If he is feeling like he has no choice
this is a sign that it is not a higher world experience.
And Graham is mistaken about what Paul was decribing in his Tiger's Fang
experience. There was no giant form in the world of Sugmad. IT is completely
formless. Even Anami, which is below the state of Sugmad means without form.
The last form that one encounters on the way to the Sugmad is Sat Nam.
These are things that have been explained and Ford should have recognized.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>>This
>> is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are
>>called
>> the Silent Ones.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Silent Ones... lets see H.K experiences in Soul Travelers of Far country
>(page 132):"the Silent One spoke....take one swallon, only one..........."
>They are Silent or not ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Notice that the Silent One in Harold's experience is not giving him a discourse
on life. Notice that the Silent One is not telling him the meaning of life or
answering questions about life or even the path of ECK.
That's the way of the Silent Ones.
Rumi once was told by some of his students that another person had claimed many
of the inner experiences famous amongst Sufis, including traveling into the
inner worlds and meeting with Shams, Rumi's Master. Rumi said such claims are
common and worthless. What do they even know of one fraction of Shams? How
could they think they could see him like we might see another person?
In Harold's experience above, he is describing a Silent One offering him a
drink. And if this was the only thing that Harold described I would say it
would be worth no more than Graham's journal. Experiences like this don't mean
much to anyone else except the one who experiences them. Graham acts as if they
prove something. This is one of the biggest mistakes. It is one that is so well
known that very few ECKists I know would ever try to make claims based on their
inner experiences.
Unfortunately, this still happens from time to time. It is not uncommon for
ECKists to have experiences that suggest they have attained a higher state. It
is a mistake to think this means something to this physical world.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>let's see graham's experience, 1rst meetting with Silents Ones: 28 march
>1996 and the second meeting:14 august 1998.
>In this 2 experiences i don't see the difference with H.K experiences.
>After this, the experiences with Silent Ones give him a challenge with his
>inner experiences with eck masters, Silent Ones and all P.T beliefs and
>others Masters to bring him to an other view of reality.
>Why he become aware for this experiences ?
>How many Eckists see the same experiences and take this to an kal
>experiences or test of faithfulness ?
>What is the reality of our experiences ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that some of Graham's experiences sound a lot like the experiences that
Paul describes and Harold describes. That's not a sign that they are what they
seem to be, however. In fact, my experience is that most true Soul Travel
experiences are not at all what we expect.
The more the experience sounds like the ones described in the books, the more
likely it is simply a projection of our imagination. Many of Graham's
experiences fall into this classic pattern. He sees the Golden Wisdom Temples
exactly like they are described and he sees Gopal Das exactly as he is
described.
I agree that this raises a very important question: How do we know what is real
in our experiences? I agree that many ECKists make many of the same mistakes
that Graham is making, that what he is seeing with his imagination is the same
as a real Soul Travel experience. The two are very different.
Ford makes it sound like these experiences must be taken as true since Graham
asks for Harold's help to show him the truth. Ford says that using the word
given to us by the Master and using the Master's form is the way we must test
these inner experiences. If these tests don't work, then how does anyone know?
This is a test that does work if you are being visited by an inner being and
you want to know if they are of the ECK. However, this does not work if these
beings are merely one's own imagination.
It is common these days for ECKists to imagine that they are visiting a Golden
Wisdom Temple where they see the Shariyat like a big book on a podium and the
light of truth coming from the book filling them with love and wisdom. However,
this is all way too much in line with what is expected. That's a sign that this
is simply imagination, not real Soul Travel.
This is still okay. Such inner contemplations are still valuable. But we
shouldn't confuse them with real Soul Travel experiences. The imagination is a
good thing to use and to practice with, but we should not imagine that these
are beings coming to tell us that we are supposed to take over the Rod of Power
from Harold Klemp.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> So, the value of the experience is what we learn from it.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Yes, but we are illusionned by what you think of all beliefs P.T put inside
>our minds and H.K continues.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree. You must get beyond all of these images if you are going to know your
real inner experiences. The problem isn't that people aren't having real inner
experiences. The problem is that they are so caught up in preconceptions that
they don't see what is really happening. They miss what is real and instead see
what they expect to see.
It is easy to see this in Graham's journal. He describes having an inner
experience showing how the link to the Master is like a chrome bar, meaning
that it was indestructable. He had this experience after learning about Darwin
leaving Eckankar. The inner experience put his mind to rest. From this you can
see how his experience came to fill in his doubts. It was showing him exactly
what he believed and wanted to believe.
Once again, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with this. This is a fine
way of finding out our own understanding. Letting our imagination bring to the
surface what we know deep within ourselves. However, this doesn't mean that
some great beings are coming to us to tell us what a special person we are and
that we are now going to become the next Mahanta. This is coming from our own
imagination. We shouldn't mix these up.
Do you see what I mean?
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> By the way, I believe the fact that Graham was given the spiritual name,
>>Phoo
>> Lin, which sounds like Foolin' in his own english language, is a sign of
>>what
>> he is really experiencing.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Who is not fooling of God ?
>You accept H.K experience after his God realisation as normal and you think
>that Phoo Lin, Graham spiritual name, is a sign of what he is really
>experiencing.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, I had the good fortune of hearing Harold's experience first hand. He
told it to me during one of our evening meetings even before he told anyone
else or wrote about it.
I can tell you that hearing it first hand left a much deeper impression than
reading it in a book. However, I also must tell you that beyond the impression
it left, it doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't prove that he achieved
God-Consciousness because he had that experience. What shows me Harold's state
of consciousness is the wisdom he speaks from, not some kind of experience he
claims he has had.
That's the whole point. So, no, I do not accept Harold's experience as meaning
anything like proof. And in the same way, Graham's experiences don't prove
anything either. If Graham could offer teachings that spoke from the highest
states of consciousness, then I would see it very differently.
As for his spiritual name, Phoo Lin, what I was trying to say is that I think
his own subconscious was telling him something.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>>Comparing what Wah Z means in swahili is not
>>the
>> same thing, since english is Graham's language and thus the word Foolin'
>>means
>> exactly that to him. What it means in his own language is what matters.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Noooo, Doug, don't search the reasons to kill graham's experiences.
>I don't know that Wah Z is H.K language or H.K is chinese, the same to
>Peddar Zasq or Dap Ren.
>Noo Doug, please be sincere, wait graham's book before you critisize his
>spiritual name.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, I am not trying to find reasons to reject Graham's experiences. Not at
all. I read them completely open minded to what he was writing.
I think some of his experiences sounded very nice, but he simply didn't know
how to see them or what they meant. It is too bad that Ford couldn't help him
understand what these experiences meant.
The spiritual names of the Masters are not in any language. You are right about
that. They are simply names. But the term foolin is english and means something
in english. It seemed to me that it was his own subconscious telling him
something, but he missed what it was trying to say to him.
As for Graham's book, I would be glad to read it and see what he says there. I
will wait to see what he says. Perhaps he says somethings in his book that will
change my mind. I am only going on what Ford has printed in his book.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Peux-tu me dire ce qu'il en ait des expériences de Paul Twitchell ? Les
>critiques de Paul Twitchell ne sont elles pas basées sur ses propres
>experiences spirituelles ?
>Les bases d'Eckankar sont liées essentiellement sur des expériences
>intérieures. Sais-tu réellement si Sugmad a désigné qui que ce soit comme
>son agent direct sur le plan physique en qualité d'Harold klemp?
>Harold Klemp a été désigné LEM parce qu'il a eu des expériences intérieures
>montrant ses capacités intérieures.
>J'estime alors que les expériences de Graham doivent être considérées de la
>même manière que nous considérons les expériences d'Harold Klemp sauf que
>dans le cas de Graham, ces expériences montrenet une autre facette
>d'Eckankar pas du tout plaisante.
>N'est-ce pas en cela que son nom spiritual me semble charmant car il faut
>être fou pour arriver aux conclusions qu'il démontre.
>Comme il a dit, il ne prétend pas être un nouveau mahanta donc son nom
>spiritual me semble encore une démonstration de ce qu'il a à accomplir dans
>cette vie présente.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I can't read french, so I don't know what the above means.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Can you say to me what it is for Paul Twitchell's experiences? Criticisms of
>Paul Twitchell are based on its own spiritual experiences. The bases of
>Eckankar are primarily dependent on inner experiences. Do you really know if
>Sugmad indicated anyone like its direct agent on the physical plan? I
>estimate the experiences of Graham must be considered in the same manner
>that we consider the experiences of Harold Klemp except that in the case of
>Graham, these experiences show another side of Eckankar not at all pleasant.
>His spiritual name seems to me charming because it is necessary to be foolin
>to show another side of eckankar. Like he said, he does not claim to be new
>a mahanta his spiritual name seems to me to be a demonstration of what he
>has to achieve in this life present in eckankar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that we should take Graham's experiences and treat them like we would
Paul's experiences and Harold's experiences. However, the way I believe we
should treat them all is to read them and let them go. They don't prove
anything. They should never be taken as proof. Only our own experiences can
prove anything to us.
However, the spiritual connection we gain through their wisdom and words is
something altogether different. If we can see where such words come from, and
we know how to follow them back to their source, then we can determine what
state they are writing from.
My experience with Graham is that he is not writing from the higher states of
consciousness. In fact, if we set aside his experiences, there is not much
left.
In other words, there is no outer formula to prove what is real. We either know
or we don't know. If we don't know, we should avoid trying to imagine that we
do know simply because we read something.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I led a Soul Travel class once where I asked people to set aside their
>> imagination and get at the real experience of Soul. Even the long time
>>ECKists
>> had a hard time, since they had mistakenly believed their imagination was
>>the
>> same as Soul Travel. It is not.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>I know that and I can only say that the experiences of Graham are closer to
>than I live as experiencess than that of Paul Twitchell who, for me, is an
>imaginary construction.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Paul was not describing his inner experiences as if they were word for word as
they happened. If he did, his books would have been just as empty and they
would only have described his own experience, which means nothing to anyone
else. Listening to someone else's experiences don't mean anything unless they
show us something that means something to ourselves. Paul spent a lot of his
writings on explaining the meaning and talking about the universal path.
Graham is simply describing experiences. How do you know they aren't just the
creations of his imagination? Why would you put some kind of value on his
experiences? Lots of people claim that God has spoken to them. So what? Why is
that important?
What is important is our own experiences - not because of what we might imagine
them to mean, but because of the experience itself. The big mistake that lots
of people make is that they read interpretations into their experiences. Their
interpretations are more important to them than the experience itself. This is
the sign they are fooling themselves.
We should set aside our interpretations. We should avoid explaining what our
inner experiences mean. We should learn to leave our experiences as just what
they are - experiences. They don't prove anything. They don't mean we are
greater than others or that God is talking to us. They are experiences. The
experience itself changes us. The interpretation is what our mind puts onto our
experiences and changes them into something they are not.
<snip>
> PHILAM WROTE:
>You do not think that the experiences of Graham made exploded the myth of
>the line of the spiritual ecks masters or Silents Ones or quite simply the
>vision of what eckankar will be on the physical level. I am always surprised
>that Sugmad sends via Rebazars Tarzs a message of this in Soul Travelers of
>Far Country (page131)"Don' t make the error of trying to rule the universes,
>the worlds of god, by yourself-by your own dictates." Why this warning? Did
>Sugmad see something in the future in the way in which H.K will running
>Eckankar?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Now you are trying to read things into these experiences. That's exactly what I
am saying is a big mistake. It is the same for Harold's experiences as it is
with Graham's.
From what I could see, Graham had already become disgruntled with Eckankar
before he started having those experiences that exploded his myths. In fact, he
actually quit Eckankar and wrote a letter of resignation. He wrote this in
November 1999.
Now, go back and read where his myth exploding experiences started. Guess what?
They started after he quit Eckankar. Suddenly the rod of power is not being
transfered in the Valley of Tirmer. Suddenly Harold is in the way of the
teachings. Suddenly he needs to take over and run Eckankar. All of his
experiences come just as he expects them to and exactly as he sees things.
Ford asked Graham about these myth exploding experiences:
"I asked Graham if he had heard about these issues before and also if he shared
these opinions at the time he transcribed Chungchok's observations. The issue
was whether these inner experiences merely reflected information and opinions
that he already held, albeit from an ostensibly unimpeachable source.
"He responded that he did in fact have questions and doubts. He had perceived a
vast difference between the inner master and the outer master. This was
evidenced most strikingly in the thin content of Harold's writings, in contrast
to the wisdom expressed by Wah Z in the inner. Yet, Graham stressed that what
came through from Chungchok was new and for the most part outside of his
knowledge of Eckankar."
I think Ford asked a good question here, but Graham's answer shows that his
experiences were falling right in line with his changed feelings and thoughts.
I think that people will believe these things if they want to, and there is
nothing wrong with that. But this doesn't mean he was having experiences from
the Silent Ones telling him great truths that would be of value to all ECKists.
In other words, no one should take those experiences to mean anything.
And yes, I agree, we should treat the experiences of the Masters the same way.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>>Ford
>> even asks Graham this questions once, and it is clear that Graham
>>experienced
>> what he was already thinking and expecting.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>?? I don't see this in Graham experiences.
DOUG RESPONDS:
See the quote I provided above. That's what I was referring to.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Sometimes the inner teachings recede from a teaching. That means the true
>> connection withdraws and we must work extra hard to go within to find the
>> connection. There is a reason for this. Those who refuse to accept
>anything
>> less and refuse to give up will find what they are looking for. If they
>ask
>> inwardly for help from the Inner Masters, they will also gain help. Or you
>>can
>> ask for help from Life, Itself, but it is more difficult when it is
>>impersonal.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>You want to speak about the need for having an Inner Master?
>The question is this one: what is the real capacity of an Inner Master? What
>is the reality of this inner form ?
>
>Sincerely
>
>Philam
DOUG RESPONDS:
At first, the Inner Master can seem like a being outside of ourselves. However,
the more time we spend with the Inner Master, the more we come to realize that
we are not separate.
The question that a seeker needs to ask is: How can he gain an inner link to
the spiritual teachings beyond what he knows himself?
If he is satisfied with what he already knows, then there is no need for a
teacher. But if he wants to gain access to wisdom beyond his own understanding,
then he must find a teacher.
The spiritual teachings can be gained through the Inner Master, once the seeker
has gained an inner link to the Master.
Since I'm not sure what you would like to know about the Inner Master, I will
leave it at that. However, if you have questions, please let me know. I'm glad
to share what I have learned.
Jan4litsnd
read Ford's book, but from the excerpts and discussions here was getting the
same impression as what you've said when you talk about Graham's experiences
conforming to his expectations and beliefs. I think that may be what Harold had
in mind when he replied to Graham about his experiences.
>Subject: Re: Under the Banner of Heaven
>From: drma...@aol.com (Drmarman)
>Date: 12/30/03 8:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031230205021...@mb-m03.aol.com>
>
<snip some>
Jan4litsnd
>Date: 12/30/03 8:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bss097$eba$1...@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr>
>
<snip>
DOUG:
>>This
>> is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are
>>called
>> the Silent Ones.
PHILAM wrote:
>Silent Ones... lets see H.K experiences in Soul Travelers of Far country
>(page 132):"the Silent One spoke....take one swallon, only one..........."
>They are Silent or not ?
>
>let's see graham's experience, 1rst meetting with Silents Ones: 28 march
>1996 and the second meeting:14 august 1998.
>In this 2 experiences i don't see the difference with H.K experiences.
>After this, the experiences with Silent Ones give him a challenge with his
>inner experiences with eck masters, Silent Ones and all P.T beliefs and
>others Masters to bring him to an other view of reality.
>Why he become aware for this experiences ?
>How many Eckists see the same experiences and take this to an kal
>experiences or test of faithfulness ?
>What is the reality of our experiences ?
DOUG:
>> So, the value of the experience is what we learn from it.
JAN:
At one time Ford asserted that Graham was to be the next Living ECK Master.
What was Graham's belief about his Mastership as found from reading his
journal?
Interestingly, reading more of the quote Philam referred to above speaks to the
issue of discussing this with others:
From SOUL TRAVELERS OF THE FAR COUNTRY, Harold Klemp, pg. 133:
"Or would I touch the water to my lips before the signal to drink was given?
That would cancel the test, and for this reason: It meant a lack of
self-discipline. Outwardly, it meant I would break the law of silence and talk
to others about the ECK Mastership before its time. So many make the mistake of
claiming the Mastership based on an inner experience alone. They have an
experience of this nature on the inner planes, then assert from that one
experience that others should recognize them as an ECK Master."
<snip>
PHILAM wrote:
>You do not think that the experiences of Graham made exploded the myth of
>the line of the spiritual ecks masters or Silents Ones or quite simply the
>vision of what eckankar will be on the physical level. I am always surprised
>that Sugmad sends via Rebazars Tarzs a message of this in Soul Travelers of
>Far Country (page131)"Don' t make the error of trying to rule the universes,
>the worlds of god, by yourself-by your own dictates." Why this warning? Did
>Sugmad see something in the future in the way in which H.K will running
>Eckankar?
JAN:
The next sentence Philam didn't quote was: "It is the will of the SUGMAD, which
manifests through all the spiritual hierarchy, that will assist you.'"
Pardon the snipping, but this thread is quite long and am responding mostly to
the quotes Philam made.
The thread seems to me to revolve around different individuals' understandings
about the meaning of Inner Masters, and what *each* of us (not ONLY Graham) is
getting for ourselves from our experiences.
Lots of us have our own experiences with the ECK Masters. And lots of other
folks in other religious paths have experiences along their pathway that we do
not. One person's experiences don't negate another's. They are just experiences
meant for the individual's own education.
PHILAM wrote:
>You want to speak about the need for having an Inner Master?
>The question is this one: what is the real capacity of an Inner Master? What
>is the reality of this inner form ?
JAN:
What is the reality of the form of the Inner Master? What is the reality of
anyone or anything? Each individual will find the answers for themselves about
the nature of reality, and the nature of GOD. That question is what the path of
Eckankar is all about. It seems to me the answers come through Self Realization
and God Realization.
From THE SHARIYAT KI-SUGMAD Book 2, Paul Twitchell, pg.15:
"However, the first thing which is noticed here is that all time and space
dimensions are different from where it resided in the physical world. The laws
are different and the beings and entities all abide by rules unknown upon earth
and its respective planes. Soul must again become used to these new laws, and
as It Passes through each plane, similar to the time zones and nations of the
physical world, It finds different ideas along with new laws and ways of life.
Each time It enters into another spiritual world, It finds that the laws are
vastly different from those of the area which It has just passed through. It
takes adjusting to keep up with the travel from one plane to another."
"The measurement of reality therefore, comes when Soul realizes during Its
flight into the higher worlds that understanding is a perception of the
spiritual senses and not a fact or event in Its travels. It is also found that
to isolate any part of the spiritual universe as a single fact, all by itself,
is impossible. This is the greatest mistake that most men make. They cannot
grasp any of the spiritual life as a whole, much less their physical existence,
and as a result find themselves chasing illusions instead of reality." --Paul
Twitchell.
JerryC
It is said that at any point in time there are some 72 individuals who are
in training for successorship. My take has always been that they represent
72 directions that the movement can go in. The movement being a living
movement. not a Static one. The teachings being IN THE PROCESS of unfolding
and not a done deal.
Its like going to the Movies and seeing a film that has intense plots , but
the director hasn't finished the film and he is making it up as he goes.
therefore no one can predict what is to come including successorship,
because the decision hasn't been made yet.(or has it)
We know from Harold that Darwin had told several that they were in line.
Harold passed the test of silence, perhaps others didn't.
JerryC
"Jan4litsnd" <jan4l...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031231104749...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Matt Sharpe
with negative entities in disguise...ive met many of these, and they
are numerous...and of course, what demon wouldnt love to make an Eck
student believe they are the next LEM just so they get themselves into
a situation where they create a situation where the LEM has to tell
them exactly what they dont want to hear, and perhaps the student
will leave, or be ousted...either way, it seems to me that one must
recheck thier own premises....perhaps they have got one wrong, and so,
perhaps percieve a thing as true, when it simply isnt.much criticism
seems to fall on Harold's reply to graham, but as of yet, ive seen
none that falls on graham's perception of his experiences.....just
because an inner entity looks and sounds like something or someone
familiar, doesnt always mean that it is...one must test these things
at times....
Baraka Bashad
"Philam" <Phi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bss097$eba$1...@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr>...
Drmarman
>what i wonder, is why noone even considers that possibly graham met
>with negative entities in disguise...ive met many of these, and they
>are numerous...and of course, what demon wouldnt love to make an Eck
>student believe they are the next LEM just so they get themselves into
>a situation where they create a situation where the LEM has to tell
>them exactly what they dont want to hear, and perhaps the student
>will leave, or be ousted...either way, it seems to me that one must
>recheck thier own premises....perhaps they have got one wrong, and so,
>perhaps percieve a thing as true, when it simply isnt.much criticism
>seems to fall on Harold's reply to graham, but as of yet, ive seen
>none that falls on graham's perception of his experiences.....just
>because an inner entity looks and sounds like something or someone
>familiar, doesnt always mean that it is...one must test these things
>at times....
>Baraka Bashad
>
DOUG RESPONDS:
Actually, Matt, Ford Johnson did address this point. He pointed out that Graham
on numerous occassions tested these visitations by using his secret word as
well as calling upon the Living ECK Master and the Mahanta to show him whether
these beings were true or not.
Since he did this, which is exactly what ECKists are instructed to do in such
cases, Ford feels that to reject Graham's experiences we must reject all
experiences.
However, Ford didn't recognize that the tests he was talking about only work
when they are real beings who are trying to deceive or trick us. It doesn't
work if these experiences are the results of our own imagination, since they
are our own creation.
If we want to believe something, the Master is not going to stop us. If we are
interested in truth, then we must learn to separate out our imagination. It is
one of the most difficult and yet most worthwhile skills to learn.
Thanks.
Doug.
Drmarman
DOUG RESPONDS:
He seems uncertain. It seems to me that Graham looked to some HIs and Ford to
give him feedback that his journal was describing real experiences and it meant
what it seemed to mean. He seemed very relieved to hear that they did accept
his journal as real experiences. However, from what I could read, it didn't
seem that Graham was always convinced.
Ford wrote: "I asked Graham whether or not he had received the inner training
preparing him to work directly and consciously with chelas in the inner worlds
and take them on journeys into spirit. He indicated that he had not, and that
he did not at that moment feel capable of consciously projecting into the inner
worlds of others at their invitation."
At other points, Graham seems quite confident about what he has experienced.
For example, Ford wrote:
"He was of the view that Harold would recognize what was being said by the Nine
Silent Ones. Graham had been told that Harold was informed, on the inner, of
the contents of his journal, and that it would be forthcoming."
So, it isn't exactly clear.
> JAN WROTE:
>Interestingly, reading more of the quote Philam referred to above speaks to
>the
>issue of discussing this with others:
>
>From SOUL TRAVELERS OF THE FAR COUNTRY, Harold Klemp, pg. 133:
>"Or would I touch the water to my lips before the signal to drink was given?
>That would cancel the test, and for this reason: It meant a lack of
>self-discipline. Outwardly, it meant I would break the law of silence and
>talk
>to others about the ECK Mastership before its time. So many make the mistake
>of
>claiming the Mastership based on an inner experience alone. They have an
>experience of this nature on the inner planes, then assert from that one
>experience that others should recognize them as an ECK Master."
DOUG RESPONDS:
What a great quote. Thanks for digging up the rest of it.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Great point.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Great quotes.
Thanks, Jan.
Doug.
Drmarman
>Excellent points Jan.
>
>It is said that at any point in time there are some 72 individuals who are
>in training for successorship. My take has always been that they represent
>72 directions that the movement can go in. The movement being a living
>movement. not a Static one. The teachings being IN THE PROCESS of unfolding
>and not a done deal.
>
>Its like going to the Movies and seeing a film that has intense plots , but
>the director hasn't finished the film and he is making it up as he goes.
>therefore no one can predict what is to come including successorship,
>because the decision hasn't been made yet.(or has it)
>
>We know from Harold that Darwin had told several that they were in line.
>Harold passed the test of silence, perhaps others didn't.
>
>JerryC
DOUG RESPONDS:
Interesting thought.
I guess we only hear the story of the one who makes it, but this means there
are probably 71 other stories about those who didn't, that are probably almost
interesting.
Thanks.
Doug.
Michael Wallace
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031231232134...@mb-m14.aol.com...
The major area of consciousness that I cannot see that Ford addresses, and
for me this is a major flaw in what he writes, is the area of the Censor.
IMHO if someone cannot distinguish between the subtle messages of their own
Censor and the even more subtle messages from Higher Awareness, then they
are simply not in a sound position (Pun intended) to determine the greater
or lesser degree of their own reality... let alone the reality of someone
else.
Once again, it strikes me that Graham was used as a flunky by Ford Johnson.
Where it may have been that he might have been able to spiritually assist
the fellow, the reality is that he made a fool of the poor fellow in public,
and in front of the whole body of his peers.
Separating imagination from reality... That is probably the hardest thing we
could imagine <G>
Love
Michael
>
Philam
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20031230205021...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Doug, i understand what you say but accept that the experiences of graham is
not his book but his experiences from his journal.
My experiences is the same but it is possible that if i want to write this
experience like a book , i will take him with mind.
The mind will play a lot of thing in this experience.
Do you think that all who go tho the higher planes don't know this ?
Don't limit graham in the fooling man.
No, Doug.
See Dialogues in the Master, page 197, the title is "the sugmad speaks".
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> I would much rather have fiction filled with the wisdom and spiritual
> >truth of
> >> The Tiger's Fang than a journal of beings telling someone what to
believe.
>
> > PHILAM WROTE:
> >The tiger fang's is the same.
> >All esoteric writtings are based on beliefs.
> >Only if seeker have experience, this become seekers'belief that we know
this
> >as a knowgniness.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Paul is writing from his own understanding. He does not say anything even
close
> to what Graham wrote like this:
>
> "This experience took place on October 5, 1994, but I was reluctant to
write it
> down, because of what it implied. Now I feel I have no choice but to put
it
> down, as I've felt uncomfortable for not doing so...."
>
> After this the Sugmad speaks to Graham, saying at the end, "KNOW THAT I
THE
> SUGMAD HAVE SPOKEN"
>
It is the same in "dialogue with the master" and one thing you don't forget
is: it is graham journal and my journal is the same.
Date, experience and commentary if possible.
Wait graham book after to critisize his experiences.
> Then Graham says again, "I did not want to put it down, but I have had no
> choice. Not to do so, I now feel would be a lack of faith. With my former
> Master, Sant Ajaib Singh Ji, I had the same experience as Sri Paul
Twitchell
> when He was taken to see the SUGMAD by Sri Rebazar Tarzs. In this
experience, I
> was allowed to speak to the giant form that had manifested (as described
by
> Paulji) on different occassions."
>
> What is this feeling that he has no choice? That's not how spiritual
growth
> takes place. Spiritual growth is all about our choice. We are never forced
into
> anything, nor are we given a mission by some beings, like Graham
describes.
>
I don't agree with you.
When you are in Higher planes , they aren't the word choice or not.
When you aware in this experience in your mind, you can take this experience
like a choice or not.
Do you understand what i mean ?
When you say that "spiritual growth is all about our choice" is a sentence
of mind not to the Soul. And i think you know why ?
> Yes, we might have visits from Masters and beings who help us with what we
> decide to do, but it is all our choice. If he is feeling like he has no
choice
> this is a sign that it is not a higher world experience.
>
Noo, this is not true.
The experience you will take from higher world is the translation of what
Soul express himself to the mind who take this in the form. After that, Mind
can say that he have choice or not but the choice is not part of experience
who is doing in the higher planes.
I have difficult with english and i don't know if i speak well. sorry.
> And Graham is mistaken about what Paul was decribing in his Tiger's Fang
> experience. There was no giant form in the world of Sugmad. IT is
>completely
> formless. Even Anami, which is below the state of Sugmad means without
form.
> The last form that one encounters on the way to the Sugmad is Sat Nam.
>
They are form and form in the history of Tiger Fang.
All knew what you say and i think Graham also.
Wait his book.
> These are things that have been explained and Ford should have recognized.
>
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >>This
> >> is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are
> >>called
> >> the Silent Ones.
>
> > PHILAM WROTE:
> >Silent Ones... lets see H.K experiences in Soul Travelers of Far country
> >(page 132):"the Silent One spoke....take one swallon, only
one..........."
> >They are Silent or not ?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Notice that the Silent One in Harold's experience is not giving him a
discourse
> on life. Notice that the Silent One is not telling him the meaning of life
or
> answering questions about life or even the path of ECK.
>
> That's the way of the Silent Ones.
>
Humm, Doug, the Silent Ones speak or not ? Yes in the case of H.K. Giving a
discourse or not is not the problem. If they speak to the chela, your
arguments that the Silent Ones don't speak is wrong.
I see in H.K 's cas that they speak. For me, the Silent Ones can speak.
> Rumi once was told by some of his students that another person had claimed
>many
> of the inner experiences famous amongst Sufis, including traveling into
>the
> inner worlds and meeting with Shams, Rumi's Master. Rumi said such claims
>are
> common and worthless. What do they even know of one fraction of Shams? How
> could they think they could see him like we might see another person?
>
Humm, the problem, Doug, is: P.T or D.G or H.K become the LEM by their inner
experiences.
All P.T 's books (80%) are inner experiences.
> In Harold's experience above, he is describing a Silent One offering him a
> drink. And if this was the only thing that Harold described I would say it
> would be worth no more than Graham's journal. Experiences like this don't
>mean
> much to anyone else except the one who experiences them. Graham acts as if
>they
> prove something. This is one of the biggest mistakes.
What mistakes ?
do you read Tiger's fang in the same manner ?
Read the introduction by P.T. , this book want to prove something like
graham journal.
> It is one that is so
well
> known that very few ECKists I know would ever try to make claims based on
>their
> inner experiences.
>
> Unfortunately, this still happens from time to time. It is not uncommon
for
> ECKists to have experiences that suggest they have attained a higher
state. It
> is a mistake to think this means something to this physical world.
>
Humm, what P.T doing in his inner experiences ? or H.K ?
It is how a major eckist see this in inner.
> I agree that this raises a very important question: How do we know what is
real
> in our experiences? I agree that many ECKists make many of the same
mistakes
> that Graham is making, that what he is seeing with his imagination is the
same
> as a real Soul Travel experience. The two are very different.
>
What is the difference ?
> Ford makes it sound like these experiences must be taken as true since
Graham
> asks for Harold's help to show him the truth. Ford says that using the
>word
> given to us by the Master and using the Master's form is the way we must
>test
> these inner experiences. If these tests don't work, then how does anyone
>know?
>
> This is a test that does work if you are being visited by an inner being
>and
> you want to know if they are of the ECK. However, this does not work if
>these
> beings are merely one's own imagination.
>
Sorry, but your arguments are confused.
1.You suppose that graham's experiences are imaginary experiences, not a
real soul travel experiences but i can't see this on my point of view.
Tell me the differences between an imaginary experiences and Soul travel's
experiences.
> It is common these days for ECKists to imagine that they are visiting a
Golden
> Wisdom Temple where they see the Shariyat like a big book on a podium and
the
> light of truth coming from the book filling them with love and wisdom.
>However,
> this is all way too much in line with what is expected. That's a sign that
>this
> is simply imagination, not real Soul Travel.
>
What is the diffrence between the Soul travel and the imagination ?
> This is still okay. Such inner contemplations are still valuable. But we
> shouldn't confuse them with real Soul Travel experiences. The imagination
>is a
> good thing to use and to practice with, but we should not imagine that
>these
> are beings coming to tell us that we are supposed to take over the Rod of
>Power
> from Harold Klemp.
>
No, he have this experience not he supposed to take the rod of power.
I think all eck chelas can have this experience of rod of power.
I have this experience me too with Rebazars Tarzs.
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> So, the value of the experience is what we learn from it.
>
> > PHILAM WROTE:
> >Yes, but we are illusionned by what you think of all beliefs P.T put
inside
> >our minds and H.K continues.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I agree. You must get beyond all of these images if you are going to know
>our
> real inner experiences. The problem isn't that people aren't having real
>inner
> experiences. The problem is that they are so caught up in preconceptions
>hat
> they don't see what is really happening. They miss what is real and
>nstead see
> what they expect to see.
>
Do you serious of what you say ?
The basis of eckankar are the preconceptions they build surrounded the Inner
Master and others Masters of varaigi.
The One conclusion of Graham is what you write.
>he Master is like a chrome bar,
>meaning
> that it was indestructable. He had this experience after learning about
>Darwin
> leaving Eckankar. The inner experience put his mind to rest. From this you
>can
> see how his experience came to fill in his doubts. It was showing him
>exactly
> what he believed and wanted to believe.
>
It is the 2nd conclusion Graham made in his experiences.
The same is true with the Inner master or the mahanta or ....
> Once again, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with this. This is a
fine
> way of finding out our own understanding. Letting our imagination bring to
the
> surface what we know deep within ourselves. However, this doesn't mean
that
> some great beings are coming to us to tell us what a special person we are
and
> that we are now going to become the next Mahanta.
>
No, he exploded the belief of mahanta conception.
This is your experience and you and me don't see graham's after his
experience.
But Harold attitude after his experience don't shock you ?
> That's the whole point. So, no, I do not accept Harold's experience as
>meaning
> anything like proof. And in the same way, Graham's experiences don't prove
> anything either. If Graham could offer teachings that spoke from the
>highest
> states of consciousness, then I would see it very differently.
>
Wait his book, all inner experiences seem as he wrote in his journal; i
think all. me is the same.
> As for his spiritual name, Phoo Lin, what I was trying to say is that I
>think
> his own subconscious was telling him something.
>
Do you tell you that the fooling man is negative ?
It is the simple spiritual name wo spelling is P H O O L I N.
Foolin is not the same Phoo lin.
And we can see this as the foolin of god.
Wait his book.
We read only his experiences from his journal. It is not the same from your
journal ?
>
> >> DOUG WROTE:
> >> I led a Soul Travel class once where I asked people to set aside their
> >> imagination and get at the real experience of Soul. Even the long time
> >>ECKists
> >> had a hard time, since they had mistakenly believed their imagination
was
> >>the
> >> same as Soul Travel. It is not.
>
> > PHILAM WROTE:
> >I know that and I can only say that the experiences of Graham are closer
to
> >than I live as experiencess than that of Paul Twitchell who, for me, is
an
> >imaginary construction.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Paul was not describing his inner experiences as if they were word for
word as
> they happened. If he did, his books would have been just as empty and they
> would only have described his own experience, which means nothing to
anyone
> else.
>
accept that this excerpts is not graham's book but his journal.
See him in this way.
> Listening to someone else's experiences don't mean anything unless
they
> show us something that means something to ourselves. Paul spent a lot of
his
> writings on explaining the meaning and talking about the universal path.
>
Paul uses all others truths hi grap in others books or outers experiences to
write his books.
Grahams write his inners xperiences directly in his journal. it is not the
same.
> Graham is simply describing experiences. How do you know they aren't just
>the
> creations of his imagination? Why would you put some kind of value on his
> experiences? Lots of people claim that God has spoken to them. So what?
>Why is
> that important?
>
His experiences are the same i have.
Don't worry for me . It is not the imagination but the real soul travel.
i don't know his experiences but he seems to be the same of harold or Paul
experiences.
The problem with graham is he explode the myths of eckankar.
> What is important is our own experiences - not because of what we might
imagine
> them to mean, but because of the experience itself. The big mistake that
lots
> of people make is that they read interpretations into their experiences.
Their
> interpretations are more important to them than the experience itself.
This is
> the sign they are fooling themselves.
>
Sorry, i don't see the difference with P.T experiences in the Tiger Fang or
Dialogue with the Master.
> We should set aside our interpretations. We should avoid explaining what
>our
> inner experiences mean. We should learn to leave our experiences as just
what
> they are - experiences. They don't prove anything. They don't mean we are
> greater than others or that God is talking to us. They are experiences.
>
The problem is this, Doug, all LEM are step in our function from our inner
experiences.
look Darwin Gross, it is Gail who say that she see him as the LEM in inner,
annd all others highers initiates you say.
It is the same with Harold Klemp. the inner experiences put him in the
poistion of the LEM. he waits this position since 1971.
Do you don't think that he cheat darwin from his inner experiences ?
The seond thing is the deposition Darwin do that it is him who appointed
harold as the LEM and not the Sugmad.
Harold say that it is Sugmad who appointed him as the Lem. Darwin show that
it is the man who appointed another man not the inner experience. Harold say
it is the inner experience he have but darwin don't recall this experience.
What it is the reality of experience when one man since 1971 think he is the
next LEM ? It is not what you say that it is his belief or imaginary who
take him to this experience of ceremonie of LEM ?
>The
> experience itself changes us. The interpretation is what our mind puts
>onto our
> experiences and changes them into something they are not.
>
Right.
It is this way i see P.T experiences, harold experiences and grahams also.
Nooo, what mistake ?
Sugmad say this to Harold , yes or no ? yes.
Why he say this when he is omniscient;
> It is the same for Harold's experiences as it
>is
> with Graham's.
>
> From what I could see, Graham had already become disgruntled with Eckankar
> before he started having those experiences that exploded his myths.
No, i don't see this in the same manner.
After his doubts of his role in eckankar, he decide to write his letter of
resignation.
>In
>fact, he
> actually quit Eckankar and wrote a letter of resignation. He wrote this in
> November 1999.
>
> Now, go back and read where his myth exploding experiences started. Guess
>what?
> They started after he quit Eckankar. Suddenly the rod of power is not
>being
> transfered in the Valley of Tirmer. Suddenly Harold is in the way of the
> teachings. Suddenly he needs to take over and run Eckankar. All of his
> experiences come just as he expects them to and exactly as he sees things.
>
No, Myths exploded when you are above the myths.
Before he leave eckankar, his experiences are the same all eckist are in
eckankar.
By leaving eckankar will see as the the thing who exploded the myths
surrounded eckankar.It is my point of view.
Why P.T run all religions ?
It is in the same manner P.T creates eckankar.
I will reponded you later.
Philam
"Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
newscache$otvsqh$6f9$1...@news.veridas.net...
And again, you repeat what Doug say without you understand something.
Why you separate the imagination of reality in inner experiences ?
Philam
> Love
>
> Michael
>
>
> >
>
>
cher
One word: Power. Michael recognizes Power when he sees it. So does Doug.
They also recognize Love.
> Philam
>
> > Love
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
Drmarman
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Doug, i understand what you say but accept that the experiences of graham is
>not his book but his experiences from his journal.
>My experiences is the same but it is possible that if i want to write this
>experience like a book , i will take him with mind.
>The mind will play a lot of thing in this experience.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Then we agree on this. My point was that Ford was making Graham's journal sound
as if it was the next Tiger's Fang. I was very disappointed when it read it.
I agree that if Graham adds more meaning and explanation and understanding in
his book, then it could give it all a lot more value.
A journal of experiences alone doesn't seem to have much meaning of itself to
anyone else except the experiencer, from what I can see.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>Do you think that all who go tho the higher planes don't know this ?
>Don't limit graham in the fooling man.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't know what you are saying here.
What do you mean by "Don't limit graham in the fooling man"?
I think that it is very common for people to read books about the higher worlds
and believe that they have gained the higher worlds when in truth they have
only experienced the lower worlds. This is very common. The problem is that the
only way you can talk about or communicate the reality of the higher worlds is
through our language, which makes it sound the same as the lower worlds. But
those who have gained the higher worlds can tell the difference.
I don't know if it is possible for those who have not gained the higher worlds
to know the difference. I often thought that I could understand what was being
described about the higher worlds until I actually began experiencing at that
level. Then I realized that all of my previous ideas were wrong. I was mixing
it up with my understanding from the lower worlds.
Do you see what I mean?
Therefore, it is very common for people to imagine they are experiencing the
higher worlds because what they are experiencing sounds like what they read
about the higher worlds, but in many cases they are simply experiencing the
lower worlds.
I am trying to point out to you the indicators and signs I see that show the
difference.
If Graham understands these issues, I didn't see it in his journal. Perhaps you
are right and I will see it differently in his book. However, I am only writing
because Ford made it sound as if Graham's journal was a serious challenge to
Eckankar. I don't see why.
They are simply a journal of his experiences. First we would have to believe
that they are all real and should be taken as truth. Why should we?
Ford claims that if we reject Graham's experiences, then we should reject the
experiences of all ECKists. No, that's not the same. I am not rejecting
Graham's journal. My point is that these are his experiences and belong to him.
They mean something to him. They don't mean much to me, and why should they?
This is the same for anyone's experiences.
You say that you have had experiences. That's good. They mean something to you.
But the lesson here is that they mean nothing to anyone else. They prove
nothing to anyone else. They belong to us. That's one of the reasons for the
Law of Silence, because we really can't share most of what is given to us
spiritually. It belongs to us alone. It stays on the inner, because it has no
place on the outer.
There are some things that do have a place on the outer. These are truths that
are universal and not personal experiences.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>No, Doug.
>See Dialogues in the Master, page 197, the title is "the sugmad speaks".
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, I am talking to you from my own understanding. I am not quoting
anything from books. People can interpret books however they want to. I prefer
to speak only from what I understand, not what I have read.
My books are still all packed up in boxes right now, so I can't read the
section you are talking about. Perhaps you or someone else can quote it so that
I could see what you mean. But it doesn't change what I know from my own
experience.
I think you are missing something else here. It would be one thing if Graham
said that he saw the Sugmad and this is what he came back with, and then told
us what he got as if it was a verbal communication. That would be okay. But
then why would he feel as if he had no choice but to write it down? These are
his words, not Sugmad's words.
If he saw that these were his words, then why does he say he has no choice but
to write them down?
<snip>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> Paul is writing from his own understanding. He does not say anything even
>close
>> to what Graham wrote like this:
>>
>> "This experience took place on October 5, 1994, but I was reluctant to
>write it
>> down, because of what it implied. Now I feel I have no choice but to put
>it
>> down, as I've felt uncomfortable for not doing so...."
>>
>> After this the Sugmad speaks to Graham, saying at the end, "KNOW THAT I
>THE
>> SUGMAD HAVE SPOKEN"
> PHILAM WROTE:
>It is the same in "dialogue with the master" and one thing you don't forget
>is: it is graham journal and my journal is the same.
>Date, experience and commentary if possible.
>Wait graham book after to critisize his experiences.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I am not criticizing his experiences. I am criticizing Ford for acting is if
these experiences prove something or present some kind of serious challenge to
ECKists or ECKANKAR.
Now you are telling me over and over to wait for Graham's book. Fine. I'm
interested to see what he writes. I'd like to hear more of his own words. But
Ford included what he felt was important to make his point.
All that I am saying is that I don't get Ford's point. These are just a
person's experiences. I see no reason why I should accept them as if they were
factually true. I also happen to see lots of reasons for why these experiences
are not what they seem to be. In fact, at the end of Graham's journal he finds
out for himself that these experiences were not what they seemed to be.
He is told that he was only given those experiences in those forms that he
could accept them. In other words, they weren't real after all. I think this
undermines the whole idea that we should take his experiences as if they were
real and factual.
Here is what Graham wrote in his journal. It came to him in a contemplation as
coming from "the voice of God":
"The truth that could have been behind ECKANKAR is ebbing away, many are aware
of this already. One more myth can now go, there is no such thing as the Rod of
ECK Power. As you have rightly said, all true Masters are ONE. This so-called
Mahanta consciousness is just one more write up, woven into the ECKANKAR
teachings by Twitchell.
"Before you ask me, I know what your next question is going to be, and I have
my answer here for you: you were given the experiences with the so-called Rod
of ECK Power because it was written into the teachings. If we had laid all this
on you from the start, your balance would have gone, hence, as true to
spirituality under a true teacher, it was given a step at a time to unfold your
ability to accept it all, for there is a lot to have to accept."
Philam, he just told us that his earlier experiences weren't real after all,
but they were just given to him this way because he could accept them that way.
In other words, they were given in the form his imagination was expecting. He
is now saying that there is no such thing as the Rod of ECK Power, even though
he had an experience of the Rod of ECK Power earlier in his journal.
He is admitting his experiences aren't real, himself. But this undermines his
whole journal. Why should we now at the end imagine that his experiences are
now real, when he admits they weren't in the beginning, even though he thought
that they were?
Also, if it was so terrible for THEM to tell him the truth in the beginning,
since he needed to be prepared for it, then why is he telling the truth to the
world? Shouldn't the world be prepared for it?
As I read it, Graham has changed what he believes in as the journal goes along,
and his experiences change along with what he believes. He realizes that he no
longer believes his earlier experiences were true. He no longer believes any of
it. So now he is having an experience where it is explained to him that yes,
they were not true, but he was given these false experiences to help prepare
him for the truth.
This seems dishonest to me. I don't know of any inner masters I have met who
would do anything like this. How could you ever trust them if they did? How can
you trust Graham's "voice of God" since it has admitted giving him false
truths?
I can see inner teachers pointing out to us that it was our own imagination at
work that caused us to see things in ways that were not true. But I don't see
why any true inner teachers would intentionally give us false experiences to
prepare us for something later on.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Then Graham says again, "I did not want to put it down, but I have had no
>> choice. Not to do so, I now feel would be a lack of faith. With my former
>> Master, Sant Ajaib Singh Ji, I had the same experience as Sri Paul
>Twitchell
>> when He was taken to see the SUGMAD by Sri Rebazar Tarzs. In this
>experience, I
>> was allowed to speak to the giant form that had manifested (as described
>by
>> Paulji) on different occassions."
>>
>> What is this feeling that he has no choice? That's not how spiritual
>growth
>> takes place. Spiritual growth is all about our choice. We are never forced
>into
>> anything, nor are we given a mission by some beings, like Graham
>describes.
> PHILAM WROTE:
>I don't agree with you.
>When you are in Higher planes , they aren't the word choice or not.
>When you aware in this experience in your mind, you can take this experience
>like a choice or not.
>Do you understand what i mean ?
>When you say that "spiritual growth is all about our choice" is a sentence
>of mind not to the Soul. And i think you know why ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
No, I don't think I know what you mean.
It seems that you are saying that the word choices we make are always from the
lower worlds. Yes, I agree with that. My point, however, is that coming back
from the higher worlds doesn't leave you feeling COMPELLED to do anything. You
don't come back feeling like you have a mission you have to accomplish, as if
you have no choice. That's the feeling you might get from the Causal Plane.
I can see someone coming back from the higher worlds saying that they now feel
that "they have no choice" but to love all of life. That seems okay. I'm not
hung up on the term that he had no choice. My point was that he was describing
a loss of freedom, like he was being compelled into doing something beyond his
choice.
My experience is that this is a sure sign it is not coming from the higher
worlds. This is a sure sign it is coming from the lower worlds. There is no
compulsion from the higher worlds.
That was what I was trying to say. Perhaps you can explain what you were saying
again, because I didn't follow it.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Yes, we might have visits from Masters and beings who help us with what we
>> decide to do, but it is all our choice. If he is feeling like he has no
>> choice this is a sign that it is not a higher world experience.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Noo, this is not true.
>The experience you will take from higher world is the translation of what
>Soul express himself to the mind who take this in the form. After that, Mind
>can say that he have choice or not but the choice is not part of experience
>who is doing in the higher planes.
>I have difficult with english and i don't know if i speak well. sorry.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
I agree that our choices of words come from the mind and the lower worlds.
However, what he is describing is someone who feels compelled to do something
by some higher power. That's not how the higher worlds work.
The whole point of the spiritual growth of Soul is to make Its own choices. To
be compelled by higher powers is a sure sign it is coming from the lower
worlds, not the higher worlds.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> And Graham is mistaken about what Paul was decribing in his Tiger's Fang
>> experience. There was no giant form in the world of Sugmad. IT is
>>completely
>> formless. Even Anami, which is below the state of Sugmad means without
>form.
>> The last form that one encounters on the way to the Sugmad is Sat Nam.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>They are form and form in the history of Tiger Fang.
>All knew what you say and i think Graham also.
>Wait his book.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I'm interested in seeing his book.
However, I am trying to respond to Ford's book, not Graham's book.
>> >> DOUG WROTE:
>> >>This
>> >> is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are
>> >>called
>> >> the Silent Ones.
>>
>> > PHILAM WROTE:
>> >Silent Ones... lets see H.K experiences in Soul Travelers of Far country
>> >(page 132):"the Silent One spoke....take one swallon, only
>one..........."
>> >They are Silent or not ?
>>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> Notice that the Silent One in Harold's experience is not giving him a
>discourse
>> on life. Notice that the Silent One is not telling him the meaning of life
>or
>> answering questions about life or even the path of ECK.
>>
>> That's the way of the Silent Ones.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Humm, Doug, the Silent Ones speak or not ? Yes in the case of H.K. Giving a
>discourse or not is not the problem. If they speak to the chela, your
>arguments that the Silent Ones don't speak is wrong.
>
>I see in H.K 's cas that they speak. For me, the Silent Ones can speak.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Here is what I am trying to say: The inner beings we call the ECK Masters are
those beings who have taken on the role of trying to help Soul find Its way
back home to God. Therefore, they often take on the role of teacher, explaining
the path or giving Soul the experiences that can help It on the path.
Therefore, the ECK Masters will from time to time lay down principles and
teachings and establish the path.
However, the Silent Ones act as agents of the Sugmad, carrying out changes in
the worlds of God. Their role is not to teach seekers how to find the way back
to God, or what the principles of the path are. They simply make the changes
necessary.
That's exactly why they are called the Silent Ones, because they do not share
their wisdom nor try to teach anyone. Yes, they are involved in establishing
the Mahanta Consciousness and seeing that it is carried on, but they don't give
out lectures on the subject. They carry out their roles in silence.
This is also why they have no names. They are acting as agents of God,
therefore personality has no place. Therefore, they have no names, you might
say, since they have given up names to take on the role they have taken. Yet,
Graham claims that one of the Silent Ones has told him his name to be
Chungchok. What is the purpose of this name? No Silent One comes when called by
a name. That is not their role. That is the role of the ECK Masters.
It is possible for the Silent Ones to take almost any form, so of course they
can appear as a person and speak. That was not my point. My point is that they
do not have the role of a teacher like the ECK Masters. Yet, in Graham's
journal what he calls the Silent Ones are acting as if they were ECK Masters,
explaining the mysteries of the path, giving him experiences, answering his
questions, giving him their names, etc.
Do you see what I mean?
<snip>
>PHILAM WROTE:
>It is how a major eckist see this in inner.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that most ECKists describe experiences just like this. My point,
however, is that most ECKists are mixing up their own imagination with Soul
Travel.
When we do a spiritual exercise and imagine visiting a Golden Temple of Wisdom,
and we feel like we are seeing what Graham described, then we should realize
that this is mostly our imagination at work. This doesn't mean we can't learn
something useful from it. We can gain a great deal from the wisdom that can
come through like this. But it is our own wisdom coming through our own
imagination.
That's why these experiences mean something to us, but not much to others.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> I agree that this raises a very important question: How do we know what is
>real
>> in our experiences? I agree that many ECKists make many of the same
>mistakes
>> that Graham is making, that what he is seeing with his imagination is the
>same
>> as a real Soul Travel experience. The two are very different.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>What is the difference ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
I tried to explain this, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job.
Learning to separate out imagination from real experience is difficult. It
takes time to learn the difference. It is very subtle.
Let's take an example. If you gave a stone to different people and you asked
them to sense what they could about the history of the stone, you would
probably find some people who started telling you a whole story about the
stone's history. When you listen to people describe this, however, can you tell
if it is imagination at work, or if they are actually describing real
sensations?
I ran this test in my Soul Travel class. It showed me that many of the ECKists
in the class were telling stories from their imagination but didn't realize it
was their imagination.
When we describe our sensations we don't tell stories like those we read in
story books. Our sensations don't come to us like that.
Now, it is quite common that our sensations become mixed with our imagination
or our memories. So, a sensation might trigger some memories of our own. Or
they might cause our imagination to go off and fill in the rest of the story.
The point I am making is that we need to learn how to tell the difference. If
we can't, then we don't know what part is real experience and what is our
imagination at work or our memories.
Does that help any?
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Ford makes it sound like these experiences must be taken as true since
>Graham
>> asks for Harold's help to show him the truth. Ford says that using the
>>word
>> given to us by the Master and using the Master's form is the way we must
>>test
>> these inner experiences. If these tests don't work, then how does anyone
>>know?
>>
>> This is a test that does work if you are being visited by an inner being
>>and
>> you want to know if they are of the ECK. However, this does not work if
>>these
>> beings are merely one's own imagination.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Sorry, but your arguments are confused.
>1.You suppose that graham's experiences are imaginary experiences, not a
>real soul travel experiences but i can't see this on my point of view.
>
>Tell me the differences between an imaginary experiences and Soul travel's
>experiences.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I have tried to explain this above. This is very subtle until someone has a
real Soul Travel experience. Then it is very easy to recognize that there is a
big difference.
However, what makes it more difficult is that we often have real experiences
but they become mixed with our imagination. That's when we need to learn the
fine art of separating out the milk from the water, as the Sufis call it.
A real Soul Travel experience takes a person far from their human consciousness
and what they believe. It takes them to a new state of consciousness. From that
new state of consciousness they will experience things that might not fit into
their human understanding. It can leave you feeling so far from the physical
world, that the physical seems like a dream, and this lifetime seems
insignificant.
Imagination can show us new ways of seeing things, and can even surprise us,
since it is very creative. However, it doesn't take us beyond our own reality.
It might stretch our way of seeing things, but it doesn't move us completely
outside of our way of seeing things. We might imagine having a discussion with
spiritual beings, and we might hear things we hadn't thought of before, but
this can still all be the creation of our imagination. After all, we have a
great deal of wisdom within ourselves and our imagination is a great tool for
unlocking what is hidden in our own subconscious.
It is very common to have a mix of both imagination and real experience. For
example, we might have a clear sensation that someone is near us. Our
imagination might then take over and imagine it is the ECK Master, Gopal Das.
In fact, we should be careful to set aside the desire of our imagination to run
with this sensation and answer our question about who it is. We should instead
learn to peer into our sensation deeper and deeper until we know what it is we
are sensing. Then, perhaps we find that it is simply the sensation of someone
near us. We might also sense that they are uplifting us in some way, or that
they want us to follow them inwardly.
I have found, for example, that I sometimes sense the presence of other beings
after having a thought about something. It seems as if some inner beings are
attracted by certain thoughts. This is something I have experienced.
Imagination loves to embellish and make it sound more important and more
fantastic.
I hope this helps.
<snip>
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> This is still okay. Such inner contemplations are still valuable. But we
>> shouldn't confuse them with real Soul Travel experiences. The imagination
>>is a
>> good thing to use and to practice with, but we should not imagine that
>>these
>> are beings coming to tell us that we are supposed to take over the Rod of
>>Power
>> from Harold Klemp.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>No, he have this experience not he supposed to take the rod of power.
>I think all eck chelas can have this experience of rod of power.
>
>I have this experience me too with Rebazars Tarzs.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that many ECKists have had experiences like this. The whole challenge
is in how to interpret what it means.
Here is what Graham wrote in his journal:
"September 17, 2001 (Second morning sitting) - On Transference of the Rod of
ECK Power
"9:00 A.M.: Since the experience of September 15, 2001, when told the outer
ceremony of the transference of the Rod of ECK Power may not take place on the
outer, I have been asking why this may be so, though for a while, I've had the
feeling of knowing the answer. Still asking for an answer, I was told:
"The outer ceremony will depend on whether Sri Harold
accepts what is in fron of him.... Whether or not he will
now recognise you as the rightful successor remains to
be seen. Irrespective of his actions, the inner ceremony
will go ahead when the time is right."
If Graham is having an experience like this, the question is what does it mean?
How should it interpret it? Should he take it as truth? Is it a product of his
imagination?
It is not exactly clear how Graham interprets this. He is told not to doubt his
experiences, but it seems as if he does. On the other hand he does seem to
accept them.
Ford seems to accept them as valid, which is why he thinks these experiences
mean so much.
But like you say, lots of ECKists have had experiences similar to this and they
obviously all don't actually mean they have actually become the Living ECK
Master. I have heard of dozens of cases myself. Some actually believed their
experiences and quite ECKANKAR when they weren't accepted for who they were.
So this is nothing new at all.
The whole point, however, is that no one should imagine that having this kind
of experience will prove anything to anyone else. It doesn't work like that.
I will complete this in a second post, since I've run out of room on this one.
Doug.
Drmarman
>> >> So, the value of the experience is what we learn from it.
>>
>> > PHILAM WROTE:
>> >Yes, but we are illusionned by what you think of all beliefs P.T put
>inside
>> >our minds and H.K continues.
>>
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> I agree. You must get beyond all of these images if you are going to know
>>our
>> real inner experiences. The problem isn't that people aren't having real
>>inner
>> experiences. The problem is that they are so caught up in preconceptions
>> they don't see what is really happening. They miss what is real and
>> what they expect to see.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Do you serious of what you say ?
>The basis of eckankar are the preconceptions they build surrounded the Inner
>Master and others Masters of varaigi.
>The One conclusion of Graham is what you write.
DOUG REPONDS:
What do you mean by: "The One conclusion of Graham is what you write." ?
I do not agree that the basis of ECKANKAR are the preconceptions surrounding
the Masters.
The basis of what I call ECKANKAR is discovered only through direct inner
experience. It is not a path that was started by Paul in 1965. It is something
that has existed long before that. I can see traces of it when I read Rumi, or
Kabir, or some of the Sant Mat teachers, for example. They are describing the
same thing using different words.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>>he Master is like a chrome bar,
>>meaning
>> that it was indestructable. He had this experience after learning about
>>Darwin
>> leaving Eckankar. The inner experience put his mind to rest. From this you
>>can
>> see how his experience came to fill in his doubts. It was showing him
>>exactly
>> what he believed and wanted to believe.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>It is the 2nd conclusion Graham made in his experiences.
>The same is true with the Inner master or the mahanta or ....
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Please explain again.
Thanks.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Once again, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with this. This is a
>fine
>> way of finding out our own understanding. Letting our imagination bring to
>the
>> surface what we know deep within ourselves. However, this doesn't mean
>that
>> some great beings are coming to us to tell us what a special person we are
>and
>> that we are now going to become the next Mahanta.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>No, he exploded the belief of mahanta conception.
DOUG RESPONDS:
He exploded a reality?
Or do you mean that he exploded what he believed in and now no longer believes
in?
Who else did he explode this for? Certainly didn't explode it for me? How could
he, since I know what the Mahanta is and IT is very real.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>This is your experience and you and me don't see graham's after his
>experience.
>
>But Harold attitude after his experience don't shock you ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't know what you mean by "don't see graham's after his experience" or
"Harold attitude after his experience".
Don't see what about Graham after what experience? What attitude of Harold are
you talking about after what experience?
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> That's the whole point. So, no, I do not accept Harold's experience as
>>meaning
>> anything like proof. And in the same way, Graham's experiences don't prove
>> anything either. If Graham could offer teachings that spoke from the
>>highest
>> states of consciousness, then I would see it very differently.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Wait his book, all inner experiences seem as he wrote in his journal; i
>think all. me is the same.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Philam, no one should expect that writing down their experiences is going to
prove anything to others. This is something that most long-time ECKists have
learned long ago.
Most of us have learned from first hand experience. How often have I seen it,
and experienced it myself? I might have an inner experience that showed me
something should be done, but it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. I wonder
why others can't listen to what I am saying, since the inner experience was so
real and powerful. But it was my experience, not theirs. It belonged to me, not
them.
Nonetheless, I did find Graham's journal interesting, and I could relate to
many parts of it. He says a lot of things that make sense, especially in the
beginning.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> As for his spiritual name, Phoo Lin, what I was trying to say is that I
>>think
>> his own subconscious was telling him something.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Do you tell you that the fooling man is negative ?
>It is the simple spiritual name wo spelling is P H O O L I N.
DOUG RESPONDS:
What do you think a spiritual name is? What does it mean?
Why is Graham telling the world what his spiritual name is?
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Foolin is not the same Phoo lin.
>And we can see this as the foolin of god.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't know what you mean by the foolin of god. Could you explain?
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Wait his book.
>We read only his experiences from his journal. It is not the same from your
>journal ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
I have never expected that my journals would prove anything to anyone else.
However, I am in the process of writing a book about many of my experiences. I
don't expect that my experiences will prove anything to anyone else. I show my
experiences to explain the changes I went through and the realizations they
brought to me. My hope is that others with similar experiences will recognize
the similarities.
I don't expect people who have had no similar experiences to believe what I am
writing. How can anyone understand unless they've experienced something
similar?
By the way, in the book I am writing, I leave out all of my personal
experiences that mean something only to me. I only relate the ones I think have
some universal meaning.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Paul uses all others truths hi grap in others books or outers experiences to
>write his books.
>Grahams write his inners xperiences directly in his journal. it is not the
>same.
DOUG RESPONDS:
So what?
Leonardo da Vinci is famous for his paintings, The Madonna and Child, and The
Last Supper. Both of these had been painted by hundreds of painters before him.
He copied a lot of the same themes in his paintings.
It is the beauty and excellence in how Leonardo presented it that matters.
Any child can paint something original.
So what?
It is the truth and the value of the truth in a spiritual book that matters.
Even a well worn truth, if explained well and in a new way is much more
powerful than reading a book that is trying to be unique.
Truth is the gold we are after, not originality.
At least for me it is.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> Graham is simply describing experiences. How do you know they aren't just
>>the
>> creations of his imagination? Why would you put some kind of value on his
>> experiences? Lots of people claim that God has spoken to them. So what?
>>Why is
>> that important?
>PHILAM WROTE:
>His experiences are the same i have.
>Don't worry for me . It is not the imagination but the real soul travel.
>i don't know his experiences but he seems to be the same of harold or Paul
>experiences.
>The problem with graham is he explode the myths of eckankar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't see how Graham has exploded the myths of ECKANKAR. Please explain.
If Graham's experiences seem similar to you, then that means you can relate to
Graham's experiences because you know what they mean from your own self. So, if
that is true, Graham is not exploding any myths for you either, since you
already felt that way before.
This is my point. If you want to believe Graham's experiences because you feel
that way already, that's fine. It isn't exploding your myths, it is reinforcing
your myths.
However, why should someone believe Graham's experiences are true if they
haven't experienced this for themselves? Why should they believe what Graham
wrote was true and give up their own beliefs?
I can see that Graham says how these experiences changed him. I can see you
saying that your experiences changed you. But why should your experiences
change me? Why should they mean anything to me?
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> What is important is our own experiences - not because of what we might
>imagine
>> them to mean, but because of the experience itself. The big mistake that
>lots
>> of people make is that they read interpretations into their experiences.
>Their
>> interpretations are more important to them than the experience itself.
>This is
>> the sign they are fooling themselves.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Sorry, i don't see the difference with P.T experiences in the Tiger Fang or
>Dialogue with the Master.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I see big differences, but that isn't important.
I agree you should treat Paul's experiences the same exact way.
Paul's experiences don't prove ECKANKAR is for real. Only our own experiences
prove that.
Simply because Paul says that he is the Mahanta doesn't prove that it is true.
We only come to know the truth of this within ourselves when we can confirm it
is true for ourselves.
The path is 99 percent on the inner, because it takes place within our own
consciousness. We can talk about it. We can write about it. But it doesn't mean
anything unless we experience it for ourselves.
>> DOUG RESPONDS:
>> We should set aside our interpretations. We should avoid explaining what
>>our
>> inner experiences mean. We should learn to leave our experiences as just
>what
>> they are - experiences. They don't prove anything. They don't mean we are
>> greater than others or that God is talking to us. They are experiences.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>The problem is this, Doug, all LEM are step in our function from our inner
>experiences.
>look Darwin Gross, it is Gail who say that she see him as the LEM in inner,
>annd all others highers initiates you say.
>It is the same with Harold Klemp. the inner experiences put him in the
>poistion of the LEM. he waits this position since 1971.
>Do you don't think that he cheat darwin from his inner experiences ?
>The seond thing is the deposition Darwin do that it is him who appointed
>harold as the LEM and not the Sugmad.
>Harold say that it is Sugmad who appointed him as the Lem. Darwin show that
>it is the man who appointed another man not the inner experience. Harold say
>it is the inner experience he have but darwin don't recall this experience.
>What it is the reality of experience when one man since 1971 think he is the
>next LEM ? It is not what you say that it is his belief or imaginary who
>take him to this experience of ceremonie of LEM ?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Don't confuse the person who is running the organization with the Living ECK
Master.
Some day the line of ECK Masters will end in ECKANKAR. That doesn't mean,
however, that some new master won't be appointed and everyone will be told this
is still the Living ECK Master.
The person who heads the organization gets that position like any other
President or CEO. He is hired on. He is appointed or selected by those who are
in charge of the organization, whether it is a Board of Directors, or the
previous President. This appointment doesn't prove anything about the spiritual
attainment of that person.
Anyone who takes on the role of the Living ECK Master, or any ECK Master for
that matter, gains their spiritual authority from the Sugmad. It comes from
nowhere else.
This means that simply saying that someone is a Master doesn't prove a thing.
We must each verify for ourselves whether that person is our Master or not.
The question is how do we recognize a spiritual teacher if we haven't attained
that state ourselves? How do we know if they are real if we don't know?
The answer is that Soul knows.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>>The
>> experience itself changes us. The interpretation is what our mind puts
>>onto our
>> experiences and changes them into something they are not.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Right.
>It is this way i see P.T experiences, harold experiences and grahams also.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Fine. Then why are you saying that Graham's experiences is exploding the myths
of ECKANKAR?
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Nooo, what mistake ?
>
>Sugmad say this to Harold , yes or no ? yes.
>Why he say this when he is omniscient;
DOUG RESPONDS:
I thought you said that Rebazar Tarzs is the one who said this? I don't have
Harold's book handy. It would be better if you quoted the whole thing so I
could see what you are talking about.
However, like I've said above, I'm talking from my own experience and what I
know for myself. I am not relying on books. I am not using quotes from books to
prove my points. I am talking from my own understanding.
Whether Harold says that Rebazar Tarzs told him this, or whether he says that
Sugmad told him this doesn't matter to me. What matters is the wisdom of the
words. Even though Harold might be giving Rebazar or Sugmad credit, I still see
this as Harold's wisdom and Harold's words.
The mistake I was talking about was when you started asking: >>Why this
warning? Did Sugmad see something in the future in the way in which H.K will
running Eckankar?>>
These questions show that you are trying to read into this warning some kind of
interpretation. I'm saying this is a mistake to read interpretations into
experiences like this. We should leave them as experiences and let them change
us based on just what they are.
You can read anything you want into these things. That is only your own
imagination at work.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> It is the same for Harold's experiences as it
>>is
>> with Graham's.
>>
>> From what I could see, Graham had already become disgruntled with Eckankar
>> before he started having those experiences that exploded his myths.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>No, i don't see this in the same manner.
>After his doubts of his role in eckankar, he decide to write his letter of
>resignation.
DOUG RESPONDS:
This is what Ford wrote in his book:
"Graham determined to resign because he felt that the teaching was too
restrictive."
That's the only explanation I see for why Graham resigned.
>> DOUG WROTE:
>> In fact, he
>> actually quit Eckankar and wrote a letter of resignation. He wrote this in
>> November 1999.
>>
>> Now, go back and read where his myth exploding experiences started. Guess
>>what?
>> They started after he quit Eckankar. Suddenly the rod of power is not
>>being
>> transfered in the Valley of Tirmer. Suddenly Harold is in the way of the
>> teachings. Suddenly he needs to take over and run Eckankar. All of his
>> experiences come just as he expects them to and exactly as he sees things.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>No, Myths exploded when you are above the myths.
>Before he leave eckankar, his experiences are the same all eckist are in
>eckankar.
>By leaving eckankar will see as the the thing who exploded the myths
>surrounded eckankar.It is my point of view.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Can you try explaining this again? I don't think I understand everything you
are saying here.
My point was that up until he resigned, his experiences seem very much in line
with what many ECKists have described. Then after he resigns, suddenly the
Silent Ones start talking to him, telling them their names, saying that Harold
needs the pass the Rod of Power and he knows it, etc.
He didn't have the experiences first. First he changed his beliefs, then his
experiences changed. So the experiences weren't opening his eyes to something
new. His experiences were confirming what he already believed.
This means his experiences were not exploding any myths. Right from the
beginning all the way to the end his experiences were reinforcing his myths.
>PHILAM WROTE:
>Why P.T run all religions ?
>It is in the same manner P.T creates eckankar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I don't understand your question: Why P.T run all religions? Can you explain
what you mean?
As far as I'm concerned this is not even close to how Paul created ECKANKAR.
Let Graham write his book and publish it. Let's see how many people come to
follow him as a Master simply because he had these experiences. And let's see
how many others find themselves having spiritual experiences after studying
with him. In 20 years we can see if Graham has created something.
Doug.
Michael Wallace
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3FF47812...@worldnet.att.net...
I have to say, that isn't really it, Cher... Obviously, determining an inner
position in relation to Love/Power and use of either is important in
maintaining a spiritual truth, but in finding it I find it is something else
entirely.
IMHO... It is more a recognition of "surprise" and discovering the state of
being natural within it. It is the surprise of seeing what I thought was
"distant" as being close... the surprise of seeing a glimpse of the horizon
on my doorstep.
And then, without even looking or trying, finding that piece of horizon
inside myself, and walking on it.
It is more surprizing and delighting than a notion of Love or Power... And
if there is any classical definition of reality, it must be that it is a
combination of the two, not a separation.
But if Philam genuinely thinks he must not seperate imagination from
experience, then that explains a lot of his actions here on a.r.e.
Love
Michael
>
> > Philam
> >
> > > Love
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
cher
Thank you Michael! <smile> Well as I'm at a level of seeing it as I
stated it, I can see that any idea of trying to imagine what you're
talking about is up the list for me! <smile> But something to look
forward to!
> >
> > > Philam
> > >
> > > > Love
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
Jan4litsnd
>Date: 12/31/03 5:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <sjIIb.565$uF6.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net>
>
>Excellent points Jan.
>
>It is said that at any point in time there are some 72 individuals who are
>in training for successorship. My take has always been that they represent
>72 directions that the movement can go in. The movement being a living
>movement. not a Static one. The teachings being IN THE PROCESS of unfolding
>and not a done deal.
>
>Its like going to the Movies and seeing a film that has intense plots , but
>the director hasn't finished the film and he is making it up as he goes.
>therefore no one can predict what is to come including successorship,
>because the decision hasn't been made yet.(or has it)
>
>We know from Harold that Darwin had told several that they were in line.
>Harold passed the test of silence, perhaps others didn't.
>
>JerryC
JAN:
That's an interesting way of looking at it, Jerry, I hadn't thought of that
before, could be.
It's a funny thing when trying to figure out how much things are preordained
and meant to be vs how much is brought on by cause and effect.
Sean
"Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$otvsqh$6f9$1...@news.veridas.net...
Ha it's all crappolla this stuff. Ford has an each way bet on Graham. I
don't know where but there were many quotes posted here and on ford's
website where Ford as a 30 year HI at one point is prepared to challenge the
authority of the LEM based upon the journal of a 2nd initiate, and then
elsewhere discounts Grahams journal as being inconsequential which merely
pointed to a "bigger story" that is the way that the LEM "reacted" to being
presented with graham's journal ... mmmmmmmmmm .... "and this which led to
me to this search see, and then I found out about Paul's "mythomania" and
then low and behold there's what Gail said, you know, he made it all up,
that's what gail said ......................"
There's more holes in Ford's story than a flour sieve!
Please quote me on that, and remember, you heard it here first. <G>
>
> >
>
>
Philam
"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20040101161412...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Then we agree on this. My point was that Ford was making Graham's journal
sound
> as if it was the next Tiger's Fang. I was very disappointed when it read
>it.
>
> I agree that if Graham adds more meaning and explanation and understanding
>in
> his book, then it could give it all a lot more value.
>
> A journal of experiences alone doesn't seem to have much meaning of itself
to
> anyone else except the experiencer, from what I can see.
>
What you say is right but recognize however that all the religions without
exception were created starting from founders inners experiences. I make
well the difference between a journal of experiences and an imaginary book
surrounded of truths. Eckankar is built around inner experiences. Thus
Harold Klemp estimated that it was going to become the next LEM, his dream
becomes a reality in 1981 then. Hadn't it then made real its journal of
experiences for the Eckankar community?
>>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I don't know what you are saying here.
>
> What do you mean by "Don't limit graham in the fooling man"?
>
> I think that it is very common for people to read books about the higher
>worlds
> and believe that they have gained the higher worlds when in truth they
>have
> only experienced the lower worlds. This is very common. The problem is
>that the
> only way you can talk about or communicate the reality of the higher
worlds is
> through our language, which makes it sound the same as the lower worlds.
>But
> those who have gained the higher worlds can tell the difference.
>
> I don't know if it is possible for those who have not gained the higher
worlds
> to know the difference. I often thought that I could understand what was
being
> described about the higher worlds until I actually began experiencing at
that
> level. Then I realized that all of my previous ideas were wrong. I was
>mixing
> it up with my understanding from the lower worlds.
>
> Do you see what I mean?
>
yes.
> Therefore, it is very common for people to imagine they are experiencing
the
> higher worlds because what they are experiencing sounds like what they
read
> about the higher worlds, but in many cases they are simply experiencing
the
> lower worlds.
>
> I am trying to point out to you the indicators and signs I see that show
the
> difference.
>
I don't agree with you. I will tell you why in below.
Not, an inner experience constitutes a multitude of thought forms which will
find demonstrations outside. The inner is not really inner because it is
Soul which saw each experience on each plan and all the manifestations in
the various plans will be inevitably followed from there. Paul twitchell
understood that and its dream became for him a reality which it made share
with everyone and we form part maintaining of this reality. At the
beginning, Paul twitchell also left a journal of experiences in order to
give him a gravitational, amusing, more accessible form more for the mental
one and Soul. Your appreciation is not that of Soul because you judges by
opposition.
> There are some things that do have a place on the outer. These are truths
>that
> are universal and not personal experiences.
>
It is the inner experience of Harold klemp which led it to be the LEM not a
universal truth. Paul, named itself, the LEM then Mahanta then created a
whole spiritual hierarchy. Anybody neither nor me are not the realizers of
all this creation. We are only spectators or actors. However all this
creation results from Paul Twitchell'inner experiences or other spirituals
Masters inners experiences.
I had said to you that to choose or not is an action of the mental one. Paul
lived the same thing, that does not shock you but you prefer to
criticize Graham. See the passages about which I spoke to you
concerning Paul.
Not, I don't agree with you. Your body is illusion However these are the
body which brings you to the reality of the Soul which you are. The illusion
is a relative reality thus your argument is false.
> Also, if it was so terrible for THEM to tell him the truth in the
beginning,
> since he needed to be prepared for it, then why is he telling the truth to
the
> world? Shouldn't the world be prepared for it?
>
> As I read it, Graham has changed what he believes in as the journal goes
along,
> and his experiences change along with what he believes. He realizes that
he no
> longer believes his earlier experiences were true. He no longer believes
any of
> it. So now he is having an experience where it is explained to him that
yes,
> they were not true, but he was given these false experiences to help
>prepare
> him for the truth.
>
> This seems dishonest to me. I don't know of any inner masters I have met
>who
> would do anything like this. How could you ever trust them if they did?
>
Sorry?
The honesty of the Interior Masters?
I will speak you about an experience of harold Klemp in his book Soul
travelers of F.C "When the meeting cam
to closed, Dap Ren turned to me and said," come with me one has long journey
to the himalayas ". Rebazars pointed distant At the....."...... Why not
something new?".
This scene which is an inner experience taken to be
accepted as absolute truth shows the Inner Master who is made rectify his
attitude by another Master. However Dap Ren was the leader of all the
Masters ecks, he was to be detached from any passion and a direct agent of
God.
It is astonishing its attitude!
The experience of Graham are in agreement
with its conclusion. The experience of harold are also in agreement with
its conclusions. Will you agree to live other thing which calls into
question your experience with all its beliefs of eckankar? I believe that
the challenge is on this level. Until where are we free in our thoughts to
be able to live the ultimate experience which are in opposition with our
beliefs?
>How can
> you trust Graham's "voice of God" since it has admitted giving him false
> truths?
>
Until where can you believe in the Inner Master if you discover that it
is an illusion?
> I can see inner teachers pointing out to us that it was our own
>imagination at
> work that caused us to see things in ways that were not true. But I don't
>see
> why any true inner teachers would intentionally give us false experiences
>to
> prepare us for something later on.
>
After his conlusion, you discover that its experiences are false but
until where you are ready to believe in the validity of the reality of the
Inner Master?
> >PHILAM WROTE:
> >Noo, this is not true.
> >The experience you will take from higher world is the translation of what
> >Soul express himself to the mind who take this in the form. After that,
Mind
> >can say that he have choice or not but the choice is not part of
experience
> >who is doing in the higher planes.
> >I have difficult with english and i don't know if i speak well. sorry.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
>
> I agree that our choices of words come from the mind and the lower worlds.
> However, what he is describing is someone who feels compelled to do
something
> by some higher power. That's not how the higher worlds work.
>
> The whole point of the spiritual growth of Soul is to make Its own
choices. To
> be compelled by higher powers is a sure sign it is coming from the lower
> worlds, not the higher worlds.
>
>
> >PHILAM WROTE:
> >They are form and form in the history of Tiger Fang.
> >All knew what you say and i think Graham also.
> >Wait his book.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I'm interested in seeing his book.
>
> However, I am trying to respond to Ford's book, not Graham's book.
>
I see what you want to say. Doug, you are surrounded of beliefs make by Paul
twitchell. It is Paul who spoke to you about Silents Ones then you take
this with you; That became for you a bible. Why wouldn't you accept that
others have experiences different from those which Paul lived? Perhaps
aren't these beings called Silents Ones aren't not Silent Ones ? did you
call into question the
definition of Paul concerning these beings? What I know, This Silents Ones
aren't be silent as his names show them because they speak with Harold and
Graham.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >PHILAM WROTE:
> >It is how a major eckist see this in inner.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I agree that most ECKists describe experiences just like this. My point,
> however, is that most ECKists are mixing up their own imagination with
Soul
> Travel.
>
> When we do a spiritual exercise and imagine visiting a Golden Temple of
Wisdom,
> and we feel like we are seeing what Graham described, then we should
realize
> that this is mostly our imagination at work. This doesn't mean we can't
learn
> something useful from it. We can gain a great deal from the wisdom that
can
> come through like this. But it is our own wisdom coming through our own
> imagination.
>
> That's why these experiences mean something to us, but not much to others.
>
>
I will explain my point of view afterwards.
Thank you for this explanation.
The difficulty that you have to explain me this difference proves in truth
that there is no difference. I am explained:
The thing we known that imagination of everyone does not have any bond with
reality but if
this imaginantion draws its history from a source of truth, it becomes a
reality for those which put their faith at it, their belief. Can the
experiments lived in the interior worlds be compared with a reality or an
imagination, where the difference? Since these experiences are based on the
beliefs of those which live it. This imagination becomes as of this moment a
reality for that which lived it. On this physical level, aren't we living
our reality on the imagination of other people? Imagination is a thought
form which becomes reality since it can appear.
Concerning the nature of the
higher and lower worlds, I make a point of recalling you that nobody can
really say what it has of the higher worlds if is not create these
proper imaginations which it will put in manifestation.
With my spiritual
experiences in the worlds higher than the beginning balanced by sleeps
after my return on the mental plane or physical plane. Something had changed
into me but there
was no expression being able to describe this who occurred. The description
of the higher worlds develops in oneself the creative imagination which
takes form in the mental world and can appear in the physical world in the
form of writing or of another thing but if you leashes on side the mental
one, it remains that this sleep of which you remember as if there were two
separate worlds and of which it is nothing of commun way. All spiritual or
different Masters which write about the higher worlds make only develop
this imagination creative of mental to bring in forms their higher
experiences of the worlds of which they do not have any memory. I will say
the memory rather is in this creative imagination. Here are my experiences
of the higher worlds.
> <snip>
Doug, remember of the history of harold, its doubts, its convictions and
finally it becomes the LEM. I do not have never read the journal of
experiencess of harold but we had here access to a journal of experiences
of Graham in its rough form such as it lived that. Without any comment, the
experiences such as it is. Did you already read the journal of Harold
before he become the LEM? I believe that all is not known as in a book
lengthily
considered before the writing.
Thanks to this dialogue.
Sorry for my english and im not sure that what i want to say is what i write
because of my poor words in english.
Philam.
Philam
"Jan4litsnd" <jan4l...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20031231104749...@mb-m10.aol.com...
You know his experiences because you read Ford's book and because Graham
give you the possibilitie to read his journal.
>
> <snip>
>
> PHILAM wrote:
> >You do not think that the experiences of Graham made exploded the myth of
> >the line of the spiritual ecks masters or Silents Ones or quite simply
the
> >vision of what eckankar will be on the physical level. I am always
surprised
> >that Sugmad sends via Rebazars Tarzs a message of this in Soul Travelers
of
> >Far Country (page131)"Don' t make the error of trying to rule the
universes,
> >the worlds of god, by yourself-by your own dictates." Why this warning?
Did
> >Sugmad see something in the future in the way in which H.K will running
> >Eckankar?
>
>
> JAN:
> The next sentence Philam didn't quote was: "It is the will of the SUGMAD,
which
> manifests through all the spiritual hierarchy, that will assist you.'"
>
This don't change the first sentence. Why ?
Tell me Jan WHY ?
After this, you will see that you know the reality and you can tell me the
difference between the imagination and the reality.
What is your opinion, your thinkness without you quote Paul T. or eckankar
words ?
Thanks for the dialogue.
Philam.
Philam
What you say ????
Can you explain please ?
Philam
Jan4litsnd
>Message-id: <bt7c8q$ebl$1...@news-reader5.wanadoo.fr>
JAN:
Evidently it's not that uncommon, some or many others have dreamed of receiving
the Rod of Power as well. Though for the real thing there are other steps,
including outer initiations as well as inner initiations. Here's what Harold
Klemp wrote to another chela about this:
From ASK THE MASTER, Book 1, page 92:
[Q] I had a dream where someone whispered to me that I was the next Living ECK
Master. What could this possibly mean?
[HK] "I appreciate your question about the dream that concerned ECK Mastership.
This sort of dream is not at all uncommon, as it is reported from time to time
by other ECKists."
"The spiritual meaning is that the Inner Master has opened the door for the
next step to Mastership, but all the spiritual guidelines apply. The first is
the Law of Silence, which is the measure by which one is tested to see whether
he can keep to himself the secrets of heaven. Nor is the chela permitted to
approach the Master with this type of dream because its true meaning is for
Soul's own unfoldment and has nothing at all to do with imagined power and
glory which so many mistake this position to include."
"All the ECK initiations are given on the outer up to, and including, the
Eighth Circle. Both outer and inner are necessary for the linkup with ECK and
becoming truly established on any plane."
"Practice the Law of Silence and the Law of Love. Many others are grappling
with the disciplines that prepare Soul for personal Mastership."
Etznab
Doug writing about spiritual truth?
Some chronological history ...
Spiritual (adj.) "[...] "of or pertaining to breath, breathing, wind, or air; pertaining to spirit," from spiritus "of breathing, of the spirit" (see spirit (n.) [... .]"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spiritual&allowed_in_frame=0
Spirit (n.) "mid-13c., "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit "spirit, soul" (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god," hence "inspiration; breath of life," hence "life;" [...] From late 14c. as "divine substance, divine mind, God;" also "Christ" or His divine nature; "the Holy Ghost; divine power;" also, "extension of divine power to man; inspiration, a charismatic state; charismatic power, especially of prophecy." Also "essential nature, essential quality." From 1580s in metaphoric sense "animation, vitality." [... .]"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spirit&allowed_in_frame=0
"Animating or vital principle in man and animals ... ."
Imho, "breath" is what puppets and fictional imaginary beings don't have.
Is the "New Age" movement one to animate imaginary characters as if they were real? I think many paths have attempted this - to rewrite history - because it is possible to have a fictional character act in any way; just like a cartoon character. The character has no choice, but is a device used by the actual real "spiritual" being like a puppeteer working a puppet, or a writer using a form of literary device (pseudo characters, pseudo names, pseudo history, etc.)
On the topic of "spiritual truth", or the idea that all religions plagiarize and take from other earlier writings, etc., and develop them further I beg to differ when the "development" process destroys the vital truth and replaces it with what the writer can manipulate at will. Imo, "real living beings" are not manipulated so easy, but they can stand up against and challenge those who lie about them repeatedly (... such as Kinpa lying about me repeatedly and saying that my membership is not current and I am not a member of Eckankar. At the same time Kinpa cries about "religious persecution". If Kinpa wants a real live example of religious persecution I challenge him to prove that his repeated lies about me don't amount to religious persecution.)
Etznab
>
>
> DONE! However, I never cried nor lied, and on that claim I return to you your endless claim tat people such as myself are trying to squelch what you see as being "truthful discussion." You cry about that issue at least as much as you claim that I cried about religious persecution, however, persecution is quite easy to prove in court, without EVER having to prove that ANY ECK Master exists!Where is YOUR evidence that ANY of my so called "lies" are in fact lies at all? It would seem that you had forgotten to prove the initial accusation in the first place, and then went forward to base other things on top[ of that CLAIM! Let's go to court over it Richard McLintock! I'd be happy to speak to headquarters and have them get your membership records which at the very least, would prove who was right and who was wrong about that issue. You are completely mistaken if you think that to be some sort of private info!
>
> Your own words, filled with their unfounded claims and so called evidences of things that no plagiarism can possibly ever prove would suffice, added with your endless repetition of the SAME OLD THINGS! DONE! And then there is your claim of being a current ECKist when in fact you have joined sean's little club of people who have publicly stated that they intend to have Eckankar done away with! Hilarious that you keep dreaming up these angles and insisting that they prove anything! Tell your friend that he will NEVER be able to force the topics of Eckankar to be removed from my site, but we ARE endlessly entertained by his attempts to do so! And how is this club of two doing? I'm still not seeing anyone rushing in to agree with or support either of you...ever wonder why that is after so man years??? Or are you too proud to consider that?
This is an admission that you really don't know the truth? For example, you wrote:
"[...] I'd be happy to speak to headquarters and have them get your membership records which at the very least, would prove who was right and who was wrong about that issue. You are completely mistaken if you think that to be some sort of private info! [... .]"
It would prove who was right and who was wrong? But I already told you that you were wrong. Why can't you believe that? Are you prejudiced against me?
And it is not that you were wrong only once, but wrong on a number of counts as you stated (according to you) details about my membership status that were also wrong.
Kinpa, Why do you continue with such an attitude against me that definitely does amount to religious persecution? You are a gambling man? Because I would say you have gambled a lot and stand to lose a lot.
Again I ask. Why can't you believe that I told you the truth? Read it again. Why can't you believe that I told you the truth?
Etznab
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 3:40:24 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:
>
>
> DONE! However, I never cried nor lied, and on that claim I return to you your endless claim tat people such as myself are trying to squelch what you see as being "truthful discussion." You cry about that issue at least as much as you claim that I cried about religious persecution, however, persecution is quite easy to prove in court, without EVER having to prove that ANY ECK Master exists!Where is YOUR evidence that ANY of my so called "lies" are in fact lies at all? It would seem that you had forgotten to prove the initial accusation in the first place, and then went forward to base other things on top[ of that CLAIM! Let's go to court over it Richard McLintock! I'd be happy to speak to headquarters and have them get your membership records which at the very least, would prove who was right and who was wrong about that issue. You are completely mistaken if you think that to be some sort of private info!
>
> Your own words, filled with their unfounded claims and so called evidences of things that no plagiarism can possibly ever prove would suffice, added with your endless repetition of the SAME OLD THINGS! DONE! And then there is your claim of being a current ECKist when in fact you have joined sean's little club of people who have publicly stated that they intend to have Eckankar done away with! Hilarious that you keep dreaming up these angles and insisting that they prove anything! Tell your friend that he will NEVER be able to force the topics of Eckankar to be removed from my site, but we ARE endlessly entertained by his attempts to do so! And how is this club of two doing? I'm still not seeing anyone rushing in to agree with or support either of you...ever wonder why that is after so man years??? Or are you too proud to consider that?
"[...] And then there is your claim of being a current ECKist when in fact you have joined sean's little club of people who have publicly stated that they intend to have Eckankar done away with! [... .]"
Sean's little club of people?
Henosis Sage
Henosis Sage
Prove that Etznab needs to prove it!
" you won't have an easy time proving that in a court of law, whereas I
would have a somewhat easier time proving the same about you...."
PROVE IT!
"you have never allowed for anyone to NOT accept your point of view"
PROVE IT!
"that IS denying a person free will, plain and simple"
PROVE IT!
"No one has ever asked you to change your opinions about Eckankar"
PROVE IT!
"you absolutely HAVE tried endlessly to convince others to accept YOUR "truth" "
PROVE IT!
Henosis Sage
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 3:40:24 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:
>
>
> DONE! However, I never cried nor lied, and on that claim I return to you your endless claim tat people such as myself are trying to squelch what you see as being "truthful discussion." You cry about that issue at least as much as you claim that I cried about religious persecution, however, persecution is quite easy to prove in court, without EVER having to prove that ANY ECK Master exists!Where is YOUR evidence that ANY of my so called "lies" are in fact lies at all? It would seem that you had forgotten to prove the initial accusation in the first place, and then went forward to base other things on top[ of that CLAIM! Let's go to court over it Richard McLintock! I'd be happy to speak to headquarters and have them get your membership records which at the very least, would prove who was right and who was wrong about that issue. You are completely mistaken if you think that to be some sort of private info!
>
> Your own words, filled with their unfounded claims and so called evidences of things that no plagiarism can possibly ever prove would suffice, added with your endless repetition of the SAME OLD THINGS! DONE! And then there is your claim of being a current ECKist when in fact you have joined sean's little club of people who have publicly stated that they intend to have Eckankar done away with! Hilarious that you keep dreaming up these angles and insisting that they prove anything! Tell your friend that he will NEVER be able to force the topics of Eckankar to be removed from my site, but we ARE endlessly entertained by his attempts to do so! And how is this club of two doing? I'm still not seeing anyone rushing in to agree with or support either of you...ever wonder why that is after so man years??? Or are you too proud to consider that?
Kinpa falsely claims:
be removed from my site, but we ARE endlessly entertained by his attempts to
do so!"
another one for the new recent list of intentional Defamation, vile abuse,
lies, and harassment here at a.r.e. by LFN Guardian Matthew M Sharpe.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BrMdjOdqv8o/q8fU2r-UqPsJ
If this keeps up I'll be running out of space on Google to store these comments
copied into my email account. tsk tsk time is of the essence.
Henosis Sage
> ------------------------------------------------------
> As always, you are wrong again on ALL counts... go cry yourself to sleep!
Kinpa falsely claims:
"Tell your friend that he will NEVER be able to force the topics of Eckankar to
be removed from my site, but we ARE endlessly entertained by his attempts to
do so!"
BUT to imagine I have any interest in "forcing eckankar topics off the site?"
What utter DELUSIONAL and/or LYING CRAP .... insanity:101
he's an IDIOT after all.
( Now, bloody remember that Henosis!!! )
Henosis Sage
> ------------------------------------------------------
> As always, you are wrong again on ALL counts... go cry yourself to sleep!
".. go cry yourself to sleep!"
Fraudulently claims to "speak for others" and repeatedly "tells others" what
they should do. So Vairag of you, such spiritual humility and honoring of
other's space and freedom is very compelling. No wonder people a cuing up to
join the LFN and Eckankar with your exquisite guidance Kinpa ... truly
remarkable.
Kinpa
> On Saturday, 18 July 2015 14:46:25 UTC+10, Kinpa wrote:
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > As always, you are wrong again on ALL counts... go cry yourself to sleep!
>
> ".. go cry yourself to sleep!"
>
> ooh aaah Mr Bossy Boots! ... dominant assertive males are always so attractive and sexy
Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself if you please, I do not swing that way
> Fraudulently claims to "speak for others" and repeatedly "tells others" what
> they should do. So Vairag of you, such spiritual humility and honoring of
> other's space and freedom is very compelling. No wonder people a cuing up to
> join the LFN and Eckankar with your exquisite guidance Kinpa ... truly
> remarkable.
Keep digging friend!
Henosis Sage
You just can't help it can you ... never had an original idea your entire
fucking LIFE ... totally bereft of authenticity and integrity. A cheap copy.
Henosis Sage
RE: "Not at all, you are again looking at your own image...obsessive/compulsive much??"
Who told you that, because you could never work anything out by yourself
without being told first or an imaginary crowd cheering from the sidelines
calling out "go kinpa go kinpa go kinpa! Yay!!!"
Or should that be "Go Shabda Preceptor our Beloved LFN Guardian" keeping evil
doers like HS out of our precious community of 28 Eckists?
When are you going to provide the proof for these defamations against Etznab?
Here or are you waiting to do it at "interview" and in Court?
Henosis Sage
> I need to prove nothing to you....But feel free to bring charges...but to do that you will have no choice but to do that here, under American law...be prepared to bring your registered copyright also, it will be required, otherwise, you have NO case....I'll look forward to being served by your American lawyers!
18 July 2015
"You'll have to forgive me for not saying anything more than "bring it son!", because
I will withhold any further conversation on the matter until this has been finished!"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/61sNhGu87-4/AnszwrPqJXAJ
Etznab
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 3:40:24 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:
>
>
> DONE! However, I never cried nor lied, and on that claim I return to you your endless claim tat people such as myself are trying to squelch what you see as being "truthful discussion." You cry about that issue at least as much as you claim that I cried about religious persecution, however, persecution is quite easy to prove in court, without EVER having to prove that ANY ECK Master exists!Where is YOUR evidence that ANY of my so called "lies" are in fact lies at all? It would seem that you had forgotten to prove the initial accusation in the first place, and then went forward to base other things on top[ of that CLAIM! Let's go to court over it Richard McLintock! I'd be happy to speak to headquarters and have them get your membership records which at the very least, would prove who was right and who was wrong about that issue. You are completely mistaken if you think that to be some sort of private info!
>
> Your own words, filled with their unfounded claims and so called evidences of things that no plagiarism can possibly ever prove would suffice, added with your endless repetition of the SAME OLD THINGS! DONE! And then there is your claim of being a current ECKist when in fact you have joined sean's little club of people who have publicly stated that they intend to have Eckankar done away with! Hilarious that you keep dreaming up these angles and insisting that they prove anything! Tell your friend that he will NEVER be able to force the topics of Eckankar to be removed from my site, but we ARE endlessly entertained by his attempts to do so! And how is this club of two doing? I'm still not seeing anyone rushing in to agree with or support either of you...ever wonder why that is after so man years??? Or are you too proud to consider that?
I will speak with headquarters about this matter, but first I want to know where did you get the Oct. 2014 figure? Was it from someone who told you that about my membership card, or was that your creation. Btw, you haven't yet answered where that Oct 2014 figure came from, did you? Please send the link.
Henosis Sage
> I am offering nothing. If it bothers you so much, write headquarters! There IS a reason I keep saying that. Prove me wrong, or don't.
----
KINPOOP PLAYING MIND GAME OF MANIPUALTION:
"There IS a reason I keep saying that."
OF COURSE THERE IS
GOTTA FRIEND IN ECK SPIRITUAL SERVICES DO WE?
STILL DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO ETZNAB IS OR HIS ID OR HIS ADDRESS MATTEWELLA?
Awwwh bummer man.
RE: "I am offering nothing."
Tell us something we don't know!!!
Nothing knew there - it's the story of your whole fucking life - narcissists
are like that and you are an open book buddy boy.
never do.
Etznab
Ever wonder why history, especially ancient history, is difficult to know for certain? Take a guess.
How about people changing the truth to something else and passing that down as history?
Someone repeatedly suggests that all religions do this? Take from existing records and develop it, whatever?
Well, my point (for nearly a decade now at a.r.e.) is that changing history is not always a good thing and at the extreme end can lead to killings and wars. I have tried to prevent adding to this legacy by researching about Eck Masters and evidence used to support the history. I learned about many copied and borrowed - some now say plagiarized - sources credited to Eck Masters. Particularly Rebazar Tarzs. I asked, if Rebazar was a fiction that died with Paul Twitchell and who has been speaking for Rebazar Tarzs since? I know of examples, but I wanted to open this up for discussion. Furthermore, I asked the question (In so many words) more than once at a.r.e. How do some people, Eckists, act when their beliefs are challenged and / or they don't like the input of others?
This past year we had another example with Kinpa and his colorful language and what belongs in the toilet. I mentioned how Eckists I know generally have a lot of tolerance and patience, etc., and how I love (for the most part) Eckankar people and groups I have met. Even holding Eckankar satsangs above those of any other group and not wanting to officially join any other religion other than Eckankar. These things I mentioned recently, but have included them throughout my time at a.r.e. over the years. I don't flaunt Eckankar like some people do, or brag about it when I'm more concerned with understanding the history. So I asked questions to facilitate discussions here for years. I am and have been probably the one active Eckankar member respected and welcomed at the number of websites frequented by Ex-members because I didn't try to rub more "snow" in their faces and / or spin the truth. So I've been around the block. I am (and have been) not only interested and concerned with clarification of man-made pseudo history and religion, with determining fiction from fact, but I am also keenly interested in the ways that members like myself are treated by other members who are of another opinion.
The record of a.r.e. shows countless dialogues between many different people. This past year I was lied about, my friends lied about and my Eckankar membership lied about. All by a single person known as Kinpa and the creator of this LFN group.
http://www.lightforcenetwork.com/group/eckankar
His back and forth with another a.r.e. poster (not a member of "Eckankar") has been (IMHO) deplorable and not abated for over a year. Obviously the two don't see eye to eye. Sean is not the only person who was moved to complain about Kinpa. I have also challenged some of the lies and childish behavior. Maybe not in the same way as Sean (certainly not because I am not him), but I will in my own way follow up with his actions to learn what motivated him to do it in the first place. Meanwhile, I think people can keep in mind all of the arguments at a.r.e. appear to mostly stem from people unsure, or unaware about the truth and from people arguing over differing sets of beliefs. It is my opinion that some clarification is in order and it is not helped when others change the topics of discussion to become personal and attack one another. If those attacks could be set aside and people work together to find the unbiased truth about why Rebazar Tarzs appears to be a plagiarist I think a.r.e. (IMO) will accomplish one of its original mission statements.
How about it guys?
Etznab
Guess what idiot? Sean and I have been researching and proving things (and with examples) for years. Sean's research has been great. I know this and you know this. Did you not use, borrow, take (whatever) from his website and post the material to yours?
Humor and banter now and then are not unknown to groups such as a.r.e. Neither are attacks, swearing and just plain immature behavior. However, I believe that your actions against me are looking more like a "Kinpa crusade" to silence the credibility of other with whom you disagree. As evidence I would submit all of your sweeping statements that could have been worded differently, but weren't.
Henosis Sage
Well said Etznab.
You are the sweet cream that floats on the top of a bucket of sour milk.
Always have been. You have nothing to prove to anyone.
Those with any decency and self-awareness already know it. :-)
Cheers
Etznab
***
For well over a decade I've had a passion for word and world history, including the history of religions. It was perfectly natural for me (an Eckankar member for decades) to personally investigate the allegations of revisions, copying and plagiarism, etc., documented in Ford Johnson's book and the books by David Lane. I didn't want to do it, but it happened for a number of reasons.
1.) An Eckist from an old chat group sent an unsolicited email to my e-mail address telling me about Ford Johnson's soon-to-be-released book. (back in 2003).
2.) I saw how people were treating one another in the a.r.e. and other groups as they argued over what was fact and what was fiction.
3.) I wanted to know the exact date when Paul Twitchell was allegedly poisoned.
4.) I wanted to know Who? or What? really was / is Rebazar Tarzs.
Now it has been about a decade since I began my research. It has been about three decades since I've been an active member of Eckankar. My membership was kept current all that time. It did not lapse. It did not expire. I did not take a break and go inactive.
It is one thing to discuss matters of history and religion, whether literally true, or myth (what have you) IMHO, but quite another matter to personally attack an individual publicly with lies such as they shit their pants, or they are lying about being a current member of Eckankar, etc.
I would have to say that Kinpa's lies have been out of bounds and bordering on criminal after I asked him nicely to stop lying about the "shit" he spoke of and about my membership status.
This is to inform readers here that I did speak with membership services prior to writing this post. They confirmed what I already knew and what I already told Kinpa on several occasions.
At this point I will continue not speaking to Kinpa until he apologizes for the lies and explains the reasons why he made them.
P.S. I did not write the Eckankar books, but I damn well have the right to know where the text came from; and whether it was copied, or plagiarized! If people can't handle that an active member of Eckankar could care to personally investigate and discuss such matters in a forum such as a.r.e. designed for just that purpose then I might suggest they take a good look in the mirror and seriously ask the question Why? Is it hate? Is it fear? Is it pre-judice?
Henosis Sage
> This is another lie...yes, I AM calling you a liar richard
>
>
> > This is to inform readers here that I did speak with membership services prior to writing this post. They confirmed what I already knew and what I already told Kinpa on several occasions.
> >
> > At this point I will continue not speaking to Kinpa until he apologizes for the lies and explains the reasons why he made them.
> This is yet another lie, for as long as you keep speaking my name in posts here, you are NOT refusing to speak to me, you are being a dishonest coward, period...stop saying my name at all then and let it drop...until that happens, well...witness what the effect of your cause is, I have no need of stating it, and in that alone I have given you exactly what you have asked for...enjoy that, but do not compound it further...I will use your own criteria...if it isn't written about in a book or resource that I can find, it didn't happen at all! POOF! :D
>
>
> > P.S. I did not write the Eckankar books, but I damn well have the right to know where the text came from; and whether it was copied, or plagiarized! If people can't handle that an active member of Eckankar could care to personally investigate and discuss such matters in a forum such as a.r.e. designed for just that purpose then I might suggest they take a good look in the mirror and seriously ask the question Why? Is it hate? Is it fear? Is it pre-judice?
> Why are you mentioning or questioning anything? I have no fear of you, why would I? By your own words I find it extremely hard to believe that you still send in a monetary donation for discourses, I also don't believe that you believe that Eckankar actually works at all....I could be wrong, but until I see it, I still do not believe your words, you DO actually lie, and often lately...
>
> If you don't like my saying that, you don't have a choice in it, it IS my opinion after all, get over it...don't say my name or any derivation of it. Simple, saying it is to invite me into your space to do as I will. YOU make whichever choice you feel is necessary! And live with it! My karma with the two of you ended quite some time ago, so speak not of any karma as it involves me, worry only about your own. And your wordy compatriot is bound in the exact same way, where I am actually not at all...
------
BACK IN JULY 2015 I SAID TO ETZNAB
me (Henosis Sage change)
12/07/2015
- show quoted text -
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BrMdjOdqv8o/qBbgOuUFOkMJ
And I knew what would be coming eventually way back then.
"patience" and "detachment" [aka unaffected] are two of the "32 marks" of
a Master.
Etznab has BOTH in spades!!!
*twinkle*
Etznab
Etznab
> >DOUG:
> >>> is exactly what the Silent Ones do not do. That's exactly why they are
> >>>called
> >>> the Silent Ones.
> >
> >>Silent Ones... lets see H.K experiences in Soul Travelers of Far country
> >>(page 132):"the Silent One spoke....take one swallon, only one..........."
> >>They are Silent or not ?
> >>
> >>let's see graham's experience, 1rst meetting with Silents Ones: 28 march
> >>1996 and the second meeting:14 august 1998.
> >>In this 2 experiences i don't see the difference with H.K experiences.
> >>After this, the experiences with Silent Ones give him a challenge with his
> >>inner experiences with eck masters, Silent Ones and all P.T beliefs and
> >>others Masters to bring him to an other view of reality.
> >>Why he become aware for this experiences ?
> >>How many Eckists see the same experiences and take this to an kal
> >>experiences or test of faithfulness ?
> >>What is the reality of our experiences ?
> >
> >DOUG:
> >
> >
> >At one time Ford asserted that Graham was to be the next Living ECK Master.
> >What was Graham's belief about his Mastership as found from reading his
> >journal?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> He seems uncertain. It seems to me that Graham looked to some HIs and Ford to
> give him feedback that his journal was describing real experiences and it meant
> what it seemed to mean. He seemed very relieved to hear that they did accept
> his journal as real experiences. However, from what I could read, it didn't
> seem that Graham was always convinced.
>
> Ford wrote: "I asked Graham whether or not he had received the inner training
> preparing him to work directly and consciously with chelas in the inner worlds
> and take them on journeys into spirit. He indicated that he had not, and that
> he did not at that moment feel capable of consciously projecting into the inner
> worlds of others at their invitation."
>
> At other points, Graham seems quite confident about what he has experienced.
> For example, Ford wrote:
>
> "He was of the view that Harold would recognize what was being said by the Nine
> Silent Ones. Graham had been told that Harold was informed, on the inner, of
> the contents of his journal, and that it would be forthcoming."
>
> So, it isn't exactly clear.
>
>
> > JAN WROTE:
> >Interestingly, reading more of the quote Philam referred to above speaks to
> >the
> >issue of discussing this with others:
> >
> >From SOUL TRAVELERS OF THE FAR COUNTRY, Harold Klemp, pg. 133:
> >"Or would I touch the water to my lips before the signal to drink was given?
> >That would cancel the test, and for this reason: It meant a lack of
> >self-discipline. Outwardly, it meant I would break the law of silence and
> >talk
> >to others about the ECK Mastership before its time. So many make the mistake
> >of
> >claiming the Mastership based on an inner experience alone. They have an
> >experience of this nature on the inner planes, then assert from that one
> >experience that others should recognize them as an ECK Master."
>
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> What a great quote. Thanks for digging up the rest of it.
>
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >PHILAM wrote:
> >>You do not think that the experiences of Graham made exploded the myth of
> >>the line of the spiritual ecks masters or Silents Ones or quite simply the
> >>vision of what eckankar will be on the physical level. I am always surprised
> >>that Sugmad sends via Rebazars Tarzs a message of this in Soul Travelers of
> >>Far Country (page131)"Don' t make the error of trying to rule the universes,
> >>the worlds of god, by yourself-by your own dictates." Why this warning? Did
> >>Sugmad see something in the future in the way in which H.K will running
> >>Eckankar?
> >
> >
> >JAN:
> >The next sentence Philam didn't quote was: "It is the will of the SUGMAD,
> >which
> >manifests through all the spiritual hierarchy, that will assist you.'"
> >
> >
> >Pardon the snipping, but this thread is quite long and am responding mostly
> >to
> >the quotes Philam made.
> >
> >The thread seems to me to revolve around different individuals'
> >understandings
> >about the meaning of Inner Masters, and what *each* of us (not ONLY Graham)
> >is
> >getting for ourselves from our experiences.
> >
> >Lots of us have our own experiences with the ECK Masters. And lots of other
> >folks in other religious paths have experiences along their pathway that we
> >do
> >not. One person's experiences don't negate another's. They are just
> >experiences
> >meant for the individual's own education.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Great point.
>
>
> >PHILAM wrote:
> >>You want to speak about the need for having an Inner Master?
> >>The question is this one: what is the real capacity of an Inner Master? What
> >>is the reality of this inner form ?
> >
> >
> >JAN:
> >What is the reality of the form of the Inner Master? What is the reality of
> >anyone or anything? Each individual will find the answers for themselves
> >about
> >the nature of reality, and the nature of GOD. That question is what the path
> >of
> >Eckankar is all about. It seems to me the answers come through Self
> >Realization
> >and God Realization.
> >
> >
> >From THE SHARIYAT KI-SUGMAD Book 2, Paul Twitchell, pg.15:
> >"However, the first thing which is noticed here is that all time and space
> >dimensions are different from where it resided in the physical world. The
> >laws
> >are different and the beings and entities all abide by rules unknown upon
> >earth
> >and its respective planes. Soul must again become used to these new laws,
> >and
> >as It Passes through each plane, similar to the time zones and nations of the
> >physical world, It finds different ideas along with new laws and ways of
> >life.
> >Each time It enters into another spiritual world, It finds that the laws are
> >vastly different from those of the area which It has just passed through. It
> >takes adjusting to keep up with the travel from one plane to another."
> >
> >"The measurement of reality therefore, comes when Soul realizes during Its
> >flight into the higher worlds that understanding is a perception of the
> >spiritual senses and not a fact or event in Its travels. It is also found
> >that
> >to isolate any part of the spiritual universe as a single fact, all by
> >itself,
> >is impossible. This is the greatest mistake that most men make. They cannot
> >grasp any of the spiritual life as a whole, much less their physical
> >existence,
> >and as a result find themselves chasing illusions instead of reality." --Paul
> >Twitchell.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Great quotes.
>
> Thanks, Jan.
>
> Doug.
I don't think it was Graham's idea to share his journal with Harold.
And the being that he saw, he wondered if that being was the same Tom as in the a book that Mary (a higher initiate) was reading.
This thread is interesting because Matt believes there are negative entities that must be tested
"what i wonder, is why noone even considers that possibly graham met with negative entities in disguise...ive met many of these, and they
are numerous...
"....just because an inner entity looks and sounds like something or someone
familiar, doesnt always mean that it is...one must test these things at times...."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BrMdjOdqv8o/M0AudbQ6GIEJ
And Marman believes the charged words don't work against beings created by one's own imagination, because those beings are not real.
"Actually, Matt, Ford Johnson did address this point. He pointed out that Graham
on numerous occassions tested these visitations by using his secret word as
well as calling upon the Living ECK Master and the Mahanta to show him whether
these beings were true or not.
"Since he did this, which is exactly what ECKists are instructed to do in such
cases, Ford feels that to reject Graham's experiences we must reject all
experiences.
"However, Ford didn't recognize that the tests he was talking about only work
when they are real beings who are trying to deceive or trick us. It doesn't
work if these experiences are the results of our own imagination, since they
are our own creation."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BrMdjOdqv8o/kVZj--YPmywJ
Etznab
"[...] After a cup of tea and collecting myself, I took this question back into contemplation and found myself once more with the Silent Ones. I addressed the One I knew as Chungchok, though they all looked alike, and asked him if he was Tom from the book that Mary has which mentions the Council of Nine. [... .]"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/7P8_T3oU0bM/GYRYechFBQAJ
So evidently there is a "Tom" character and "Council of Nine" circulating around in other books. Let's take a look at what Tom has to say, Shall we?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/7P8_T3oU0bM/GYRYechFBQAJ
Henosis Sage
"However, Ford didn't recognize that the tests he was talking about only work
when they are real beings who are trying to deceive or trick us. It doesn't
work if these experiences are the results of our own imagination, since they
are our own creation."
Who besides DOUG has ever said such a thing in "eckankar" ????
where is it buried in the books or discourses or in the SHARIAT books ... the "bibles"?
The guy is an asshole who makes shit up as he goes (and or mindlessly repeats someone else's shit they made up!)
None of Doug's "imaginations", or "stories" or the print in his books could possibly have been his own internal dufus creations!
F*******************************k!
Etznab
On another thread there were mentions of objective vs. subjective, and there was one about masters; questions about inner masters, etc. So this dialogue about inner beings was used to supplement all of that discussion. Because, you know, I saw Rebazar Tarzs on the inner once. I also saw Kal Niranjan. And I saw Harold Klemp as well. So were those experiences my imagination? Or were they real? Well, I have to admit (to be honest) that probably my imagination, subconscious mind, etc. did play a part.
If I thought a being came to me, such as with Graham, and if I created a religion around that then would it be similar to what Graham did? I think no. It would not. That was not Graham's objective, IMO (I did correspond with Graham and found him fairly intelligent, punctual and insightful). If I saw beings and masters come to me would it be similar to how Eckankar started?
Paul Twitchell's subjective and objective experience(s) with masters was what he wrote profusely about. In several books quoting his master's words; so said Paul Twitchell. What was the truth? And what was the truth about people who read the books? or saw a picture of Rebazar Tarzs and claimed to have had experiences with him? And even before they heard about Eckankar? Were those all real experiences? How do you tell? Imagination from reality? Well, there is one way I know about. You can ask those beings about events in history that can be proven to have happened, or not happened. Ask about factual information that you know beyond a doubt is true, and if the being lies to you then I think chances are it was the mind / imagination.
Let me think of an example. Umm ... Oh! I can also ask a real outer being the same thing! To learn if they are honest, telling the truth and can be trusted. Like I can ask other people, other Eckists and even Harold Klemp something. Rebazar Tarzs in Paul Twitchell and Eckankar books ... Was that a real Rebazar Tarzs who dictated to Paul Twitchell? Or was that Rebazar Tarzs the plagiarist? Or was that just plain Paul Twitchell pretending to be a Rebazar Tarzs?
Asking these questions, IMO, will tell volumes about an individual and how they see things. Not only on the outer, but on the inner too. It will help me to better understand people and where they are coming from. And if I present some evidence which another person claims in no evidence whatsoever, then that tells me something about that person.
Btw. Where is Kinpa these days? Or that Azutmai character who said they were not Kinpa? A lot of discussions here and elsewhere looked at whether words published in books really came from an Eck Master, or if someone who claimed to be an Eck Master used other people to make up what turned into a non-profit religion and Corporation Sole.
Now I know that some people don't like looking at the objective side of things, or even letting other people see the objective side. Oz didn't like it either when Toto pulled the curtain.
Speaking of Oz. There is a line in this song about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FhQMoJkgiY
OMG! More songs coming up on YouTube I haven't heard in years. Gotta close that link now before it takes me back.
Tisra Til
that he didn't, didn't already have....
Henosis Sage
That would have been a great help and then I would have seen the great wisdom and truth in what you presented and swallowed it whole! :-)
But let's pause and ask a serious question, because I had never noticed marman's comment there; I have never read every single post ever made on a.r.e. by him or anyone.
: so etznab, have you ever heard anyone in Eckankar ever say, or have you read, anything like that before? I haven't ... but I have not read every single word ever put into a discourse or eck book either, or seminar talk either.
What about outside of Eckankar, has anyone else said such a thing you know of?
I figured I should check by asking the question. TY
Henosis Sage
> "Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$otvsqh$6f9$1...@news.veridas.net...
> >
> > "Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20031231232134...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> > > >what i wonder, is why noone even considers that possibly graham met
> > > >with negative entities in disguise...ive met many of these, and they
> > > >student believe they are the next LEM just so they get themselves into
> > > >a situation where they create a situation where the LEM has to tell
> > > >them exactly what they dont want to hear, and perhaps the student
> > > >will leave, or be ousted...either way, it seems to me that one must
> > > >recheck thier own premises....perhaps they have got one wrong, and so,
> > > >perhaps percieve a thing as true, when it simply isnt.much criticism
> > > >seems to fall on Harold's reply to graham, but as of yet, ive seen
> > > >none that falls on graham's perception of his experiences.....just
> > > >familiar, doesnt always mean that it is...one must test these things
> > > >at times....
> > > >
> > >
> > > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Graham
> > > on numerous occassions tested these visitations by using his secret word
> > as
> > > well as calling upon the Living ECK Master and the Mahanta to show him
> > whether
> > > these beings were true or not.
> > >
> > > Since he did this, which is exactly what ECKists are instructed to do in
> > such
> > > cases, Ford feels that to reject Graham's experiences we must reject all
> > > experiences.
> > >
> > > However, Ford didn't recognize that the tests he was talking about only
> > work
> > > when they are real beings who are trying to deceive or trick us. It
> > doesn't
> > > work if these experiences are the results of our own imagination, since
> > they
> > > are our own creation.
> > >
> we
> > are
> > > interested in truth, then we must learn to separate out our imagination.
> > It is
> > > one of the most difficult and yet most worthwhile skills to learn.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Doug.
> >
> >
> > The major area of consciousness that I cannot see that Ford addresses, and
> > for me this is a major flaw in what he writes, is the area of the Censor.
> >
> > IMHO if someone cannot distinguish between the subtle messages of their
> own
> > Censor and the even more subtle messages from Higher Awareness, then they
> > are simply not in a sound position (Pun intended) to determine the greater
> > or lesser degree of their own reality... let alone the reality of someone
> > else.
> >
> > Once again, it strikes me that Graham was used as a flunky by Ford
> Johnson.
> > Where it may have been that he might have been able to spiritually assist
> > the fellow, the reality is that he made a fool of the poor fellow in
> public,
> > and in front of the whole body of his peers.
> >
> > Separating imagination from reality... That is probably the hardest thing
> we
> > could imagine <G>
> >
> > Love
> >
> > Michael
> >
>
> Ha it's all crappolla this stuff. Ford has an each way bet on Graham. I
> don't know where but there were many quotes posted here and on ford's
> website where Ford as a 30 year HI at one point is prepared to challenge the
> authority of the LEM based upon the journal of a 2nd initiate, and then
> elsewhere discounts Grahams journal as being inconsequential which merely
> pointed to a "bigger story" that is the way that the LEM "reacted" to being
> presented with graham's journal ... mmmmmmmmmm .... "and this which led to
> me to this search see, and then I found out about Paul's "mythomania" and
> then low and behold there's what Gail said, you know, he made it all up,
> that's what gail said ......................"
>
> There's more holes in Ford's story than a flour sieve!
>
> Please quote me on that, and remember, you heard it here first. <G>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
What a dufus! I noticed the incoherence in Ford but missed the major point by Marman, being backed up by Wallace and Cher - went over the top of my head? Probably, I do not recall being in this thread nor what was said.