Spoiler
Rich
inquest?
Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Five
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
Well, once again David Lane has strayed far from reality into his own
special world of innuendo. I happen to have been working as co-Editor of the
ECK World News with David Stewart at that time when he spoke with David
Lane. I remember when David Stewart told me of this meeting. Although I had
never seen the originals of the Letters to Gail, I wasn't terribly surprised
about the editing, since I had seen the original The Far Country manuscript,
along with a few others, and I had seen the same type of editing made by
Paul.
<snip>
Then why did Paul suddenly change? Why, after Paul had been so open about
crediting the teachers he had studied with up until 1966 - why would he
decide to not only stop mentioning their names, but to also go back and edit
their references out of his published materials? What is it that took place
in mid-1966 that could have caused such a change?
Well, it appears that there was an event that took place at this time.
If you will remember, back in Chapter Three, I mentioned that Paul began a
six-month series of workshops on the art of bi-location at the California
Parapsychology Foundation, in San Diego. These lectures began in late 1965
and continued into early 1966. Near the end of this series, apparently
Kirpal Singh sent out the copy of a letter to his American satsangis that
described Paul's workshops at the Parapsychology Foundation and called Paul
a fraud. (David wrote to me recently to suggest that it might have been
Kirpal's American representative who took it on himself to distribute this
letter.) Is this the real trigger to Paul's sudden change of heart? I
believe so.
Let's read again what Paul had written only months before Kirpal's
letter was sent out:
"However, I have felt a closer kinship and friendliness to Kirpal Singh,
who has shown me a lot of the other work during my first year or so under
him. Since we have parted he keeps an impartial view toward me and my
research. Therefore, if I quote him in these pages it is because I feel
that he is sympathetic and interested in my work."
How could Paul possibly feel that Kirpal was sympathetic and interested
in Paul's work after Kirpal's letter was sent out? How could Paul continue
mentioning Kirpal's name in his lectures and writings knowing that Kirpal
was not sympathetic with his work after all? It would hardly be fair to
either Kirpal or to Paul's readers. I believe this offers the real reason
for Paul's sudden changes. Paul's response was simply to drop any further
references to Kirpal. It is after this incident in mid-1966 that Paul writes
to Kirpal to ask for his manuscript of The Tiger's Fang back, which Paul
finally publishes in 1967.
<snip>
Paul studied a tremendous number of teachings. Anyone can read his
Letters To Gail to get an indication of this. It includes hundreds of books
and spiritual groups. He took up with Swami Premananda's group not only as a
student, but also to write and help, since he had already studied the
spiritual field extensively by this time. He went on to work for L. Ron
Hubbard's group as a staff writer about the same time he met with Kirpal
Singh on Kirpal's first American tour, and Paul began writing while he
studied with Kirpal, right from the beginning.
Originally it appears that Paul offered his writings as a gift to
Kirpal, which is why he mentions Kirpal's name in The Tiger's Fang and
offers the manuscript to Kirpal for his use. But apparently Kirpal didn't
want Paul's gift. Paul continued on in a friendly manner, sharing what he
had learned and speaking highly of Kirpal. But apparently Kirpal had changed
his mind toward Paul by then. David even offers a quote from one of Kirpal's
satsangis that proves this was true.
So, what did this say to Paul? Paul had found a connection to spiritual
Truth, but Kirpal did not agree with the way Paul was expressing these
teachings through his writings. A traditional Indian disciple might have
grown up being taught to accept the criticisms of the Guru and obey him, but
Paul was very much a Westerner. Paul had already written in his Tiger's Fang
that there was a strange part of himself that was deeply creative, and that
this force could not be quenched or controlled by the conventions of
mankind. So, what did it mean if Kirpal did not agree with Paul's writings
and teachings?
I think at this point, not only did Paul begin to realize that it was
no longer fair to continue using Kirpal's name in association with his
teaching, but Paul also began to understand that Kirpal didn't see how
different the nature of Paul's writings really were. What had seemed to Paul
a friendly encouragement and sympathy between the two of them had become a
point of contention for Kirpal.
In other words, this incident must have made it abundantly clear to
Paul that the teachings of ECKANKAR should not be based on an association
with other teachings from Paul's past. Using the names of these teachers, if
they were not sympathetic to his teachings, was not fair, and more
importantly, referring to them was distracting from the vision of the ECK
teachings that Paul was bringing out. While Paul started out talking openly
about his previous teachers, he suddenly realized that although they had
contributed to his education - they were not be a part of the real lineage
of the spiritual teachings that Paul was trying to teach.
This, then, was Paul's test, just as he had described the tests of his
successors in training, in our last chapter. Paul could fall back on his
past teachings or he could rely completely on the spiritual path of ECK as
it was unfolding before him. He chose to rely on the ECK.
In a very strange way, I think Paul was forced to realize that this
inner teaching he had made contact with, which was moving him forward, did
not have the lineage he had thought. I believe Paul searched for a home
through which he could share these inner teachings. He tried to offer his
writings to his teachers, but they could not accept them. Then, after
Kirpal's break with Paul, what could Paul have thought about the Master's
Form (as Kirpal called it) that visited and taught Paul? Paul had graciously
credited Kirpal for these teachings, but how could Kirpal have been the
source, if Kirpal himself did not recognize those teachings once in print?
However, even though Paul gave credit to Kirpal, in hopes of finding a
home for his writings, Paul already understood the greater significance of
the Master's Form.
<snip>
And, finally Paul had to realize that with everything he had experienced,
and with all his writings and creative expressions that he wanted to share,
they could no longer fit with any of his previous teachings. He could find
no home for those teachings with his past teachers. Therefore, ECKANKAR was
something that would have to stand on its own.
<snip>
In my effort to be as thorough as possible, I think it would be remiss
if I left this chapter without addressing a few more issues that arise here.
First, although we cannot know for sure what Paul's motivations really were
for his sudden change from openly discussing his teachers, and even though I
think I have offered what appears to be a reasonable explanation, this
doesn't in itself explain why Paul went so much further than simply removing
references to Kirpal Singh.
Why, for example, did Paul replace references to Swami Premananda? Why
would he change references to Jesus?
Paul did leave us some clues to answer these questions. For example, if
we go back to the earlier quote in this chapter, we can see that Paul had
not only replaced Kirpal's name with Sudar Singh, but had changed the
location of his visit from Washington D.C. to New York City. If Paul had
taken out Kirpal's name to remove any association with Kirpal, then it
certainly makes sense that Paul was changing the location for the same
reasons - to remove this association as well.
It is interesting that Paul was making a number of other association
changes to his teachings at this time. He made great efforts to remove all
references to "bilocation," for example, since it was creating the wrong
impression in people's minds. Paul wrote and spoke about this a number of
times, explaining that he was not referring to astral projection but
something very different. Paul finally seized on the term, Soul Travel, to
better describe this movement of consciousness.
Paul also began introducing new terms, such as ECK, Mahanta and Sugmad.
Paul explained himself here as well, that he wanted to use terms that did
not evoke preconceived images, because otherwise people thought he was just
talking about the Christian idea of spirit and God, or the Hindu idea of a
guru.
At one point, near the end of his life Paul said (from the book,
Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master, pages 118-120):
"There's one thing I want to break in here and say something about. For
example, when you write an article upon ECK, or the aspects of ECK...the
more you say or use the work ECK within the paragraph, the more powerful
your message becomes to get across to the reader. Or, in the same token, the
more when you're speaking and talking to people as an audience, or even in a
conversation, the more that you use the word ECK, you will find that it
becomes a symbol or a channel for the power to flow through...
<snip>
The word, ECK, or the symbol of EK used, is the powerhouse through which
it comes through. The word, Mahanta, or the face of the Master is that in
which the power comes through, and this is the principle that you'll have to
learn in your own writings, your own speeches from the stage, and the way to
get it across to the public. It is the channel through which the ECK power
flows..."
Paul is explaining here that the teachings of ECKANKAR are not
communicated through the descriptive use of words alone, but also through
their symbolic use. The emotions can catch this inner current, but the
intellect still needs to see and learn how this operates as well. However,
while Paul is describing something very interesting here, it should be
remembered that when we use the terms, ECK or ECKANKAR, while thinking of
the organization, then it will not act as this symbol for spirit in the same
way. We must be referring to that Inner Reality, if we want these words to
act as channels for Spirit.
In another very memorable piece, Paul went on at length explaining that
he didn't want ECKists to use the term "my soul" or "your soul" since we are
really speaking of Soul, Itself. He was trying to show that in choosing the
right terms and phrases that we are in fact speaking in a form that others
who are spiritually aware will catch and understand. That we are using
language to describe something beyond language, and therefore by taking and
using these newly established terms we can more readily evoke the meanings
we are trying to describe.
In Paul's last words before his death, at the Cincinnati Seminar, as
recorded in the book, Difficulties of Becoming The Living ECK Master, pages
134-135, he said:
"A lot of the impressions that I first set out in my first work, I'm
having to go back and redo these things and try to correct them. I'm like
the fellow who felt his way along in a college course. They told him he had
to write a book in order to keep in the work, and he didn't know what to
say. He had to go and he had to do something, but when he did, he got it all
wrong. And by getting it all wrong, ten years from there, he had to go back
and correct his book and rewrite it, and nobody believed him because they
were believing the first impression of what he made. And this is the
position I'm in."
If you follow what is being described here, you will see that in all
these ways Paul was choosing associations. He was trying to avoid or remove
associations that carried preconceived connotations and replace them with
new terms that could act as symbols and clear channels, making it easier for
others to connect with the Reality that our language does not have words
for.
In doing all this, Paul was bringing to ECKANKAR a freedom from past
traditions while incorporating the elements from them that were vital. The
concept of spiritual lineage was important, but the restrictions, traditions
and worship that go along with physical lineage was not. Therefore, Paul
described the spiritual line of ECK Masters, not for its historical accuracy
based upon historical records, but to show that as the Sufis say there is
always one who is the spiritual Pole of the world, and this light has passed
from continent to continent, from race to race, from culture to culture,
down through time.
Therefore, when Kirpal changed his attitude toward Paul, and Paul began
to remove Kirpal's name from his writings, replacing it with Sudar Singh or
Rebazar Tarzs, Paul also began to see a whole new direction for his teaching
of ECKANKAR. It was one wholly connected to an inner source, not tied to
history or tradition, or even his own past.
If you want to see for yourself how this occurred to Paul, go back to
the early part of this chapter and compare the paragraphs where Paul
replaced the names of Kirpal Singh and Meher Baba. Can you see the
difference in inner awareness from those passages once the names of the ECK
Masters is used? This is because these names become channels for the inner
teachings, just like the word ECK or Mahanta that Paul spoke about in his
quote.
Through all of these changes, Paul was trying to move our attention to
his new vision of the whole. He was also removing those religious references
that seem to make it difficult for people to grasp these teachings in a new
light.
There is another very significant element that Paul introduces into
ECKANKAR. It is best understood by quoting Paul's own words from his
Introduction to his book, The Tiger's Fang:
"The book [The Tiger's Fang] came out of personal experience. What is
written on these pages is not as important as the recording of those worlds
that few Souls, other than saints, have ever visited.
Some will say this book is the wild fantasy of a highly developed
imagination, but one must understand that there is nothing in the world of
God without some degree of truth. Even fantasy is cast out of the material
cloth of God, so how can fantasy be a complete untruth?
This statement should stagger the mind of man and shake the foundation
of the teachings of orthodox religions, philosophies, and metaphysical
concepts. However, I am prepared to make my statements out of pure
experience and one must remember that all experiences are unique only to the
experiencer."
Although many have read this quote, I'm not sure everyone has
understood what Paul is saying here. Paul says that The Tiger's Fang "came
out of personal experience." He is not saying this book is a literal record.
Paul is also saying that nothing is really made up in the imagination since
all images are the reflections of some inner truth, and therefore fiction
can come closer to truth than non-fiction.
These are not the sayings of someone who cares about ritual and
tradition or historical lineages. These are the sayings of someone who wants
only to express that spiritual reality so that others can make inward
contact in the greatest possible way, including the use of stories, journeys
into the invisible worlds, love poetry, history from a spiritual
perspective, or inner psychology for the seeker of God, as Paul's many books
have displayed.
This is not about a teaching that can be reduced to writing, as with
many religions. Rather this is about expressions of a spiritual truth in the
form of hints and clues that can connect us and align us to the inner
realities themselves. Paul was doing exactly what he said we was doing;
bringing the teachings of ECKANKAR out into the open from the inner worlds.
He was putting clothes on the naked experiences of Soul.
<Big snip>
It was exactly for this reason that Paul methodically and consciously tried
to remove the sorts of associations that could trigger old and dated
worldviews of the past. This is also why he stated so often that it must be
our own personal experiences upon which we should base our spiritual path,
not upon mere belief. He was not trying to show us the way into some closed,
secret community, but was showing us the way out. He was not trying to
replace old beliefs with new ones, but trying to describe the path of
personal experience and inner self-discovery that can free us from all the
paradigm baggage that we carry around. In a strange way, then, by choosing
new terms, new words, new names, Paul was better able to show the real
meaning of ancient truths and realities that have become overgrown by the
weeds of preconceptions.
Patti Simpson describes this wonderfully in her book, Hello Friend:
<snip>
"Of course they have totally missed the point, which is, that in the
written material of ECKANKAR you will find similarities here and there to
every religion, science, and belief system on the planet, and a whole lot
from other places. This is because in his training for the task ahead of
him, Paul Twitchell studied every religion, science, and belief system he
could find on the planet, and a whole lot from other places. In this process
he found the universal thread and he laid it out there for us so that he
could meet each individual on his home ground, regardless of what that is.
Gradually, and carefully over a period of time he shows you where that fits
in with the Whole, in the universal scheme. This, to me, is one of the most
interesting aspects of Paul's work."
According to David Lane, what Paul did was a cover-up. But the way I
see it, what Paul really did was the Great Uncovering. Which paradigm do
you find the most helpful?
The rest of the book covers most everything etznab has benn fussing about
for years.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Rich
> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Five by Doug
> Marman
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
<SNIP>
Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eight by Doug Marman
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Eight.htm
There is a very real difference between imaginative projections and real
spiritual encounters. The first will bring us experiences that fall in line
with our expectations and preconceived ideas because they fundamentally
spring out of our beliefs. But making contact with states of consciousness
beyond our own brings us face to face with things we could never have
imagined or expected. It is like opening doors in our awareness that we
never knew existed. These are often the kinds of experiences that ECKists
report. This shows the Authenticity of such experiences.
The problem that David has, if he is going to prove that ECKANKAR is
not authentic, is the extraordinary number of ECKists who claim to have had
experiences such as these. But David has chosen to focus on experiences with
Rebazar Tarzs. Even still, there must be literally thousands of reported
experiences of encounters with Rebazar Tarzs by ECKists and non-ECKists
alike. However, this hardly even touches the much larger cases of all types
of spiritual experiences and openings in spiritual awareness known to those
who have studied ECKANKAR.
Keep in mind that David does not mention the cases where people have
shared stories of meetings and experiences with ECK Masters before these
people ever heard of ECKANKAR. As an example, Harold Klemp related the
following story in his book, How The Inner Master Works, page 65:
"Another ECKist from Africa, an electrical engineer, went to the home of
a retired school principal to do some electrical work. Although the retired
principal was up in years, he told the ECKist he shared his house with his
father.
As they worked on the wiring together, the ECKist was telling him about
ECK, when a very old man came into the room.
"Hey, what are you doing there, telling the secrets of ECK to this
child?" said the old man. The child, of course, was the old man's son, the
retired principal.
"They are not secret anymore," the ECKist said. "A man named Paul
Twitchell brought them out to the public in 1965."
The old man thought about this for a while. Then he said, "I first
heard about ECKANKAR in 1914." He described the ECK Master who had taken
him to a Temple of Golden Wisdom in the inner worlds, the inner heavens.
"He spoke to me about Eckankar. I see this teaching has finally made it out
to the earth plane."
"What did this Master look like?" the ECKist asked.
"He had long blond hair," the old man sad.
"I think I know who you met. I'll bring you a picture." The ECKist
went home and found a picture of Gopal Das, an ECK Master who once served as
the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master--the position that I fulfill today as the
spiritual leader of ECKANKAR. He brought the picture to the old gentleman,
who recognized the face immediately.
"Yes," the old man said, "that is the man who first told me about the
teachings of ECK in 1914."
I like to mention these stories for the benefit of those who question
how an organization founded in 1965 could be based on an ancient teaching.
They may or may not accept it; they may or may not become members of ECK.
Doubts can set in even after one steps on the path of ECK. At some point the
person may begin to wonder; is the path of ECK really true? Is it really a
teaching that has come to earth from the inner planes?
So whenever these stories come to me, I share them. They come from
people who have nothing to gain by telling of their previous association
with ECKANKAR, often years before Paul Twitchell brought the teachings out
again in 1965."
Here is another short one, recently posted on the Internet by Barbara
Rogers:
"Last year a woman attended worship service at our local center and
told of a man she called "Red Shoes" who had been with her for over thirty
years. He was always there to help, guide and protect her and her five
children. She said he was Chinese and always stood near her right shoulder.
He got the name "Red Shoes" because her five children didn't see him
the way she did. They only saw a pair of red shoes and would know that he
was near.
After worship service she and I walked into the book room to get a cup
of tea where she saw a picture of Lai Tsi (he was on the wall with all the
other Master's pictures.) She started to cry and pointed at the picture and
said, "That is Red Shoes!!!!" I held her as she cried for over five minutes.
There are no words to describe what this experience was like for me, and I
was only the observer.
When she left the center, she said she was going to call her five
children (now grown and living in various states) and tell them that she
finally knew the identity of "Red Shoes." She joined ECKANKAR shortly after
that experience and drives a long distance to attend worship and satsang
each month. Just try telling Doris that "Red Shoes" isn't real."
Stories such as these may not be proof for anyone else, but as
Constance Robertson said in her letter to Fate Magazine, they are proof
enough for those who experience them. And the number of people who have
reported similar occurrences is extraordinary.
David is completely without foundation reducing all such cases down to
his simple psychological explanation. However, David is hardly the only one
who reacts to these stories in this way. For example, after the above story
was posted on alt.religion.eckankar, a passerby on the Internet going by the
name of TerraTrekr wrote this:
These stories are lame. They (even if true) simply represent the
revisionistic power of suggestion. As humans, we look for patterns.
Recognition of patterns has allowed us to survive. But, often the patterns
are "misses" and aren't a reflection of any real connection between events.
It's akin to Catholics seeing images of Mary on building facades, in
oil spills, and on tortilla chips. When you badly want to believe in
something, your mind finds a way to do so. That includes revising the past
to support your new paradigm. It's in no way particular to Eckankar.
I responded to this post like this:
If what you say is true, TerraTrekr, then how do you know that you are
not simply seeing in these stories what you badly want to see?
Might we not also be people who are trained in the religion of science
seeing subconscious projections based on the belief system of science, when
there aren't any projections?
I don't mean this critically, TerraTrekr. I, myself, love science and
use it in my work all the time. But the real question is how do we see our
own projections? It is not nearly as easy as it sounds, and the level of
understanding that most scientists have about it is simply appalling.
Scientists live with just as much mythology as the next person. And
they believe that they don't just as much as the next person.
Over the years, I've come to realize that this sort of scientific
thinking has simply become the popular religion of the day in most Western
countries. Such thinking believes it is superior to all other religions,
much like most religions themselves proclaim.
The effort that the scientific mind often goes through to discount or
reject the experiences of others, always amazes me. But as TerraTrekr
pointed out above, this is just the same case of wanting to see what fits
our own belief system.
All experiences are real experiences. The problem comes after the
experience, when our own worldview tries to color the experience, or in some
cases can't accept it at all. This creates problems within ourselves, when
we cannot accept our own experiences for what they are. We can become like a
person divided against our own self. Some people even wonder if they are
going crazy, when they unconsciously start suppressing their own
experiences. To then find outward evidence of the reality of our experiences
can often bring a powerful emotional feeling of release and love. It can
change our whole viewpoint, as we suddenly realize we are a part of a much
greater reality than this clay shell we call a body.
This whole process of self-discovery is what Paul meant by The Science
of Soul Travel. It is based upon experiences, and seeing those experiences
for what they are. Not more, nor less. And adjusting our beliefs from what
we learn.
<SNIP>
It is one thing for David to say: "it is theoretically conceivable that an
earnest devotee may have an authentic experience of a fabricated mystic."
This is true. It is quite possible that an individual's own imagination can
be the springboard for experiences of higher states of consciousness.
However, it something altogether different for David to say: "But it is
not the Tibetan monk who is bestowing the elevated experience; rather, it is
the devotee's own inherent capability for advanced structural adaptation
...which allows for such mystical heights." This is simply incorrect. Yes,
it may be true in some cases, but David is going way too far implying that
it is always true.
The important point that David misses is that we are fundamentally
talking about the experience of communication and dialogue with another
being. Therefore, meeting one of the ECK Masters inwardly is no different
than a physical encounter with someone we know. In both cases we can tell
the difference between a real encounter and an imagined one.
<snip>
In other words, yes, it is possible to have inner experiences from the
sheer thought of a spiritual master, but this is nothing compared with the
real encounter. The two are as different as a teenager who falls in love
with a rock star they have never met, compared to one who is drawn deeper
and deeper into a bond of love with another person who is there returning
that love. How can you even compare the two?
David not only tries to reduce all such experiences down to the level
of subconscious projections, but he also fails to recognize that the
spiritual teachings don't just appear or pour into the world from above. No
living creature can incarnate into this world directly from the higher
planes. All must take birth through physical form. The teachings of the
higher spiritual laws and principles must also manifest through someone
living in this world, or such teachings cannot manifest here. Even the ECK,
or Spirit Itself, flows like electricity into this world through Soul,
bringing life and consciousness.
To encounter such a Messenger, whether physically, inwardly or in a
dream, can leave a deep and lasting impression that changes the course of
one's spiritual growth. Even more importantly, once such a meeting takes
place, the inner form of the Master becomes a matrix through which we can
make contact with the higher spiritual realms. The Master's form becomes
like the boat in Paul's book, The Tiger's Fang, that carries us across the
sea of materiality to the spiritual shore. After repeated journeys, and
learning the laws and principles of those higher worlds, we can establish
ourselves there as citizens, you might say. Then we can travel there
directly, without the need of the Master.
These principles have nothing to do with belief. They can be tried and
verified by anyone. There is a truth to them that goes beyond imagination.
Yet, David tries to reduce these fundamental principles of ECKANKAR to mere
gibberish by his simplistic psychological theories.
<SNIP>
The realization that we do not know is a necessary step. However, with this
awareness comes an empty feeling, as if we know there must be more. It is
really an emptiness looking for something to fill it. What many religionists
do is try to fill this lack of knowing with something to believe in. What
many scholars try to do is fill this lack of knowing with critical opinions
of foolish beliefs. Both of these attempts to fill the void will prevent
these people from finding true knowledge.
In other words, the path must begin with doubt, and this doubt must
grow into the realization that we do not know. And then this realization
must grow into a deep understanding of the emptiness that comes from truly
not knowing. It is only after this emptiness is truly understood, and
allowed to exist without being filled with any kind of spiritual fast food
to satisfy that hunger, that one can begin to separate the true from the
false.
Paul Twitchell, in an early talk of his called, "Doubt," mentioned that
in the past, spiritual students had been asked to first believe in certain
basic tenets, but that this has changed, and today the seeker must first
begin with doubt.
Paul then went on to tell a story of when his Master appeared before
him, one day. Later, when he had a chance to see his Master physically, he
asked him, "Was that you that appeared before me?" His Master answered,
"Well, why don't you go back and ask that great soul."
From this, Paul realized that his Master was saying, in a sense, "Well,
do you know or don't you know?" And Paul realized that we must each decide
for ourselves this very important point. It is not something to be glossed
over too quickly. We must be willing to honestly cross that dry desert of
not knowing, before we can expect to find that oasis of knowingness.
David, there is an important point here. The Masters will often not say
whether they have indeed consciously appeared to others, or not. They will
often not directly answer such questions. They are right in doing so,
because it is vital that the seeker decides these issues for themselves. If
they cannot find the inner authority to distinguish the true inner
experience from the false, then they should recognize that they have not yet
arrived at this point. They should not look toward outer authority to fill
this void. If the Master were to answer, directly, such questions, it would
prevent the students from solving this riddle for themselves...
Therefore, what I am saying is that when people do not know the answers
to these questions such as: Is there a true reality beyond what we perceive?
What is God? Are there real spiritual masters who can connect one to the
path? ...Then, most people will try to fill this void with opinions and
beliefs, and are not willing to live with that emptiness and hunger of
unknowingness that leads one to true knowingness.
The state of unknowingness, therefore, is an advanced stage if it is
accompanied by the hunger and desire to learn. And that emptiness will
indeed be filled one day with true knowing. For this unknowingness is a
question being asked from the heart, and such sincere questions will always
draw Spirit to fill such emptiness with truth. But this story cannot be
rushed. We should not try to shorten the process...
Now, you say that my explanations have not convinced you. Actually,
that's good, since such a proof will never be long lasting anyway, and that
was not my intent. The ECK Masters see no purpose in trying to convince you,
or the world. The whole point here is that it is not important what you
believe or do not believe, what is important is knowing what you know, and
knowing what you don't know. In other words, ECKANKAR teaches that you must
arrive at this understanding yourself, not through external proof.
You say that all inner experiences must come through our brain, which
modifies everything we experience, so how can you ever be sure what we are
seeing is real? Well, this same argument can be said also about looking
through the instrument of a telescope, or microscope, or even through our
own eyes or ears. The brain modifies all such tools, and how can you ever be
sure what you perceive is real?
Such reductionist thinking leads only to theories that, once again, if
they are indeed true then there is no way to verify them. If we are, indeed,
hopelessly trapped in our brains, unable to perceive anything directly, and
completely at the whim of our brain's modifications, then there is no way to
ever know this. There is also no way to really talk about this with others,
or be sure we are really saying anything to anyone else or they are even
hearing us.
However, no matter how faulty the instrument, it is still possible to
see beneath the surface to touch the reality behind it all. A fascinating
test that has been done, has been to place mirrors, colored glasses and
prisms before people's eyes, and allow them to wear these contraptions for
days. The amazing thing that happens, is that the brains of these people
will correct for these distortions and eventually turns the picture they are
seeing back to normal. The color of the lens disappears. The upside down
image turns right side up.
What this shows, is the wonderful innate nature of our brain to show us
the truth, not to hide it or twist it. It is the same with inner
experiences. However, for most people, it is their dependence upon outer
authorities, and outwardly learned beliefs and traditions, that prevent them
from seeing what is within. Clear away these beliefs, even educated beliefs
or beliefs that come from reading spiritual books and opinions, and arrive
at that empty state of unknowingness, and then the mind begins to start
seeing the inner reality as it really is.
It is a valuable treasure to obtain this, but it is not the sort of
treasure that can be given to others. Of course we can always talk with
those brothers and sisters upon the path that recognize the hints, and know
the signs. They are the ones that know. And they know that they know.
Since David never responded to my last post, this brought an end to a
very interesting debate. However, I think this discussion shows the
incredible complexity and subtly of the whole subject of spiritual
experiences. It is one that the spiritual student must come to understand.
We should take no short cuts, but learn from experience itself. We
should not look for simple explanations or formulas to make the questions go
away, but should wait until we know. We should not accept substitutes that
make us feel all knowing. True knowingness brings a great feeling of
humility, and it has no value to anyone else but the knower.
We now return to the completion of David's point. Here he is explaining
why ECKANKAR does not produce authentic experiences:
No, since Eckankar is illegitimate it has an inborn tendency to validate
its spiritual claims in less than truly authentic ways. For instance, many
so-called religious visions reported by Eckankar members of Rebazar Tarzs
are nothing more than vivid images which manifest quite normally while one
is dreaming. Simply because an image is of a holy or revered personage does
not qualify it automatically as a Divine manifestation. A distinction must
be made between subconscious (pre/dream-like) and superconscious
(trans/transcendent) manifestations. If this is not done--as is often the
case in Eckankar where most dreams are elevated to spiritual experiences--a
"pre/trans fallacy" occurs, resulting in the confusion of infantile image
with genuine spiritual apparitions.
The pre/trans fallacy that David is referring to is another concept
developed by Ken Wilber. It is based upon the idea that the human
consciousness has developed in stages. The more primitive stages that
precede rational thought are called "pre-rational." The advanced stages that
transcend rational thinking are called "trans-rational."
The problem, according to Ken, is that people commonly mistake
pre-rational thinking with trans-rational thought and vice versa. For
example, scientists might lump together those who believe in superstitions,
which is pre-rational, with those who have experienced the state of cosmic
consciousness. Why? Because these scientists believe that both are examples
of non-rational thinking, and all non-rational thinking to them is
pre-rational.
On the other hand, is it not uncommon to find New Age seekers who think
all non-rational thinking is a higher form of thought. They will find
teachings that awaken primitive emotions, and believe these represent
communications with higher states of consciousness.
Most ECKists should have no problem relating to these ideas, since Paul
discussed the planes of consciousness at length. Paul did this for the very
reasons that Ken Wilber is pointing out; that people will confuse these
different states and come to some very mistaken conclusions that can easily
lead them in directions far from spiritual truth.
In a number of Paul's talks and writings, he points out that the field
of spirituality is filled with problems of semantics. Writers will often use
similar terms but mean very different things. A great deal of spiritual
literature is vague and shallow, while portraying itself as deep and
transcendental. Terms such as Self-Realization and God-Realization are
thrown around to impress others, while the writer hasn't even a clue to the
meanings behind these stages of development.
While the experienced spiritual traveler sees through this smoke screen
quite easily, semantics can be a serious hazard to the newcomer. Therefore,
as Paul explained, we must get to the bottom of what each writer means by
their use of the terms, and not assume it is the same as anyone else. Once
we have done this, then we can begin to translate what they are saying into
our own understanding, using our own terminology. Until then, no real
dialogue on spiritual matters is possible.
Now, what David is saying in his last paragraph, above, is that many of
the experiences that ECKists report take place in the dream state, but that
dreams represent pre-rational thought and should not be confused with Divine
manifestation, which is trans-rational. This happens to be a principle that
is taught in Radha Soami, which is why they put no attention of learning
through dreams. So, here we run right smack dab into the very problem that
Ken Wilber is talking about.
David is apparently unaware that there are dream states beyond rational
thought, just as there are dream states that are pre-rational. But we can
see from David's paragraph that he is lumping them all together as
pre-rational. Therefore, it is David who has fallen into the very pre/trans
fallacy that he is accusing ECKists of.
This doesn't mean, however, that we can lump all experiences with an
ECK Master into the category of what David calls Divine Manifestation. I
have seen many times where the Master represents the dreamer's own higher
Self, or sometimes is a symbol for the dreamer's Conscience. The Master's
image in a dream can come to indicate that something from the subconscious
is trying to emerge into consciousness, or it could be a simple wish
fulfillment dream. Just as we must learn the semantics of another person, in
the same way we must learn the language of our own dreams. Unless we do, we
can easily fool ourselves by labeling dreams without understanding them.
Before leaving this discussion on Authenticity, I must say that I
wonder why David would focus on the subject of Rebazar Tarzs. Clearly, when
it comes to the subject of experiences with higher states of consciousness,
meetings with Rebazar Tarzs represent only one small element of what ECKists
find valuable and valid with ECKANKAR. Yet, once again, David tries to paint
the whole with a distorted picture of one little piece.
This shows us that while Ken Wilber's tools of Legitimacy, Authenticity
and the Pre/Trans Fallacy, have a real value in creating a common
terminology and common language for open dialogue, these tools may can also
fool those working from the rational state of mind into thinking that they
know more than they do.
<snip>
And why does David think that a more thorough study of Paul's life is
necessary to discover what ECKANKAR is today? ECKANKAR has a living Master
who teaches differently than Paul did, and the teachings continue to change
and grow. This should be natural on a path that encourages dialogue. Because
it is through dialogue, or what ECKists often call Satsang, meaning a true
meeting with others in the spirit of the ECK Itself, that is one of the main
ways that the teachings are integrated into our lives. (I should add here
that in Sant Mat, satsang has very little dialogue. This is marks another
significant difference.)
The path of ECK is not what you can find in the books or recorded
talks. It is something far more alive than that. What does Paul's early life
have to do with understanding ECKANKAR today?
I do agree that it is all very interesting. I have always found Paul's
life fascinating. And for ECKists, I think there are many valuable lessons
and insights to be gained. But I don't see how it helps define what ECKANKAR
is. If you cannot see and understand ECKANKAR from the path of ECK, as it
exists today, then why go back to the past to get a better view? That sounds
more like looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
Etznab
> Why has Etznab posted seemingly everything but this? Because it spoils his
> inquest?
>
You think I was not familiar with that section? In fact I have
quoted parts of it here before.
The recent reference about editing in LTG3 was from another
source.
Are you suggesting that changing the name Kirpal Singh to
Sudar Singh makes Sudar Singh a real living person?
One of the points I'm trying to illustrate is how the versions
of Eckankar books I grew up with were not all factually true.
And if I were to pass on the false information unknowingly,
that is one thing. To pass it on knowingly is another. Ideally,
I would love to be familiar with the original history, & with the
original names.
BTW, David Lane contributed greatly - probably more than
any Eckist publicly did - to the uncovering of information of
which many Eckists were ignorant. IMO, he helped to bring
about two of Doug Marman's books and opened up dialogue
on topics that I personally find quite interesting. (Would we
have the dialogue and the books by Doug if it were not for
what David Lane started?)
Who does Doug think did the editing in LTG3? Paul or Gail?
That wasn't clear to me. It could almost be read as if he sugg-
esting Paul. Check the first quote you gave, the last sentence.
Would Paul Twitchell edit LTG3? I can't be sure because the
book I see has a copyright of 1990, long after Paul died.
I don't know when LTG3 came out as a discourse series.
My guess would be that the editing happened closer to that
time. And when Gail was still very much involved in Eck. If
Gail did the editing, I would suspect she did other editing &
editing during the time of Darwin Gross. Perhaps along with
others. This is ironic to me, concerning Darwin's disapproval
of revisions to LTG3 (and other Eck books) during the time
of Harold's Klemp as spiritual leader.
If it were Paul that did the editing, & Darwin knew it, then
what was Darwin arguing about? It seemed, to me, Darwin
tried to claim the right to Paul's written works according to
the "contract of purchase" he entered into with Gail.
Why did Darwin want exclusive control over any revisions
and editing to Paul's books? Or, why did he want to make
sure they stayed IN THE FORM they had during his time?
It seemed like the whole argument was about NOT MAKING
CHANGES. This is kinda curious to me if Paul Twitchell and
Eckankar already had free liberty to do so since the beginning.
Was Darwin afraid Harold might change things back to their
original forms? With the early, original names and thus expose
any revisions and editing made by Darwin or Gail?
That was just a wild guess and is speculative at best.
Besides, I believe that Gail was released of all liability
for the writings of Paul Twitchell, as part of the contract
agreement concerning the sale and purchase of those
Paul Twitchell works.
Etznab
Etznab
> Rich wrote:
> > Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Five by Doug
> > Marman
> >http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
> read more »
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=spoil&searchmode=none
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:49325b28-a33e-4e72...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Etznab
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
BY SEAN -- 29-9-2009
RE : "Who does Doug think did the editing in LTG3? Paul or Gail?"
AND other matters that interest myself regarding LTG III
HI ETZNAB,
I do not know who Doug believes did the editing in LTG 3 -- but I am fairly
certain he doesn't think it was Paul or Gail, and I myself am 100% certain
that it was not either of them.
Paul had passed before even LTG I was edited & published, so he's out of the
picture for sure.
FWIW This is what Sri Harold wrote in his "Foreword - Behind the Scenes with
Paul Twitchell"
My version is the hard back Copyright 1990 by Eckankar under the authority
of the current LEM.
"These private letters are a step-by-step look at Paul's own unfoldment into
the ECK Mastership. They are an inspiration to all who feel the flame of God
urging them to tell mankind the cardinal truths of ECK."
"A big challenge for the editors in editing this book was the fact these are
personal letters from Paul to Gail. When ever a question arose in Gail's
mind about any point, she could ask Paul about it over tea that weekend.
They got to know each other's thoughts."
"Of course, such a close physical and intutive link is not available to us
since Paul's death, or translation. So we are really outsiders looking in at
their private world - grateful for the opportunity, but still outsiders.
"If Paul the writer made a misstatement of fact in the letter, he was the
editior who could correct Gail in person that weekend. However, an
unintentional error he made was that Joan of Arc was guided by Saint
Catherine of Genoa, who was not born yet. The editors took the place of Gail
and pondered this question in contemplation. He actually meant St Catherine
of Siena, one opf Paul's favourite spiritual heroines."
"The editors mended such facts of substance at their own inner tea sessions
with Paul, during months of carefully editing these priceless letters to
Gail.
Gail knew when Paul was being humourous, an advantage lost to most readers
of these letters. Few ECKists today know of his dry sense of humour and take
at *face value everything he said and wrote*! [ my emphasis ]
"Duelly serious, THEY miss the spark of mischief that crinkled the corners
of his eyes when he wrote of a certain idea. [ They don't only miss Paul's
sense of humour that is for sure - sean ]
[skip] "The editors accordingly kept in mind the difference between Gail and
today's reader. Errors of historical FACT were set RIGHT and grammar was
corrected to reflect what Paul *meant* to say. [ my emphasis ]
"Editing thus became a prolonged session of contemplation. Every word,
phrase, and concept was carefully weighed against the spiritual principles
that Paul wanted to pass along to Gail."
[skip] So Paul was gathering and compressing esoteric concepts into a single
body of writings for later distribution to devotees of God like you."
"A consequent loss of knowledge occurs when a book, such as the Shariyat Ki
Sugmad, is translated from a Templt of Golden Wisdom on the astral plane and
is transcribed onto paper here."
" the rich concepts ........ are only approximated here. ..... Our
expereince is the ONLY voucher of truth."
"These letters, then, are simply an entry into hallowed places where the
mechanisms of *** being *** are perceived in wisdom and truth.
"Contemplate daily on these letters, for what good are they withouit the
Spiritual Exercises of ECK? ........."
"The various levels of the mind can over-react to the rush of everyday
living and make us tense and angry. A host of other negative traits pull us
off the spiritual ladder, l;eaving us on the edge, and out of sorts.
.............. "
[ I thought that was an interestingly apt paragraph :) ]
[skip ] "In these letters, Paul touches on several topics liely to cause
irritation to some people -- eg ........ ........"
------------------------
OK ... now let's see what the AFTERWORD by Sri Harold said ::
"It becomes evident in reading these letters Paul wrote .. that his
consciousness was in a state of fluctuation. ............. But he did drift
back and forth in consciousness. With apologies to history, such letters
that were too much a sign of Paul's failure to yet see and know the fulness
of the divine plan for Soul's education are EXCLUDED from this collection. "
"Paul is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of the seesawing that Soul goes through in Its
aspirations for the Oneness of All Being. [ special note to Etznab re his
recent posts on Being & Oneness ]
"It might be awkward for us to accept this faility of consciousness in Paul
unless we acknowledge the principle that he and ALL BEINGS - even the
Mahanta in training - undergo marked changes in perception as their
unfoldment progresses."
"As the world society has an expansion of awareness, the Living ECK master
adapts the eternal teachings from the inner planes to match the spiritual
needs of his audience."
[skip]
"The main difference between ECKANKAR and all other world religions is that
the Mahanta is the Word. He is the ECK."
Sri Harold closes with this : " Pure love is what Soul is always seeking. It
is as Rebazar Tarz said to the seeker in 'Stranger by the River': "Love is
most sublime, having it's origin in the House of God. In whatever heart
blooms, that Soul will be lifted and carried to the highest abode of the
Supreme SUGMAD."
---------------------------------------------
OK - well have done my best with the above, obviously reading the entire
text by Sri Harold and the book itself would help those interested in this
subject.
People will interpret the contents above in their own personal way.
But I think it is clear that Sri Harold did not overtly address anything
regarding name changes of Kirpal [ and others ] to Sudah [ and others ]
which was in the original letters from Paul to Gail at the time.
There are perhaps some subtle references, but unless one was particularly in
the Know, then these would have probably passed them by. It's important to
note that David Lane's initial research was done long before this book was
published by Harold.
IMO, this is not a book written by Paul nor under his authority as the
author, even though it is his personal writings being used. It is an
ECKANKAR book published 25 years after Paul translated. I think this is an
important point to be mindful of.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
OK, now on MATTERS that interest me about LTG - though I will be sharing
some other quotes that seem quite appropriate in the present soon.
1) I had been led to believe by many stories here that LTG III was removed
from the available Book List due to the inclusion in it of psychic matters
pertaining to the overview of knowledge & skills contained showing how to
cause the death of others. I haven't fully finshed the book as yet, but I
have seen these several references, and well, I think it's been a bit of an
over-statement as to how "bad" these things were.
I also thought or was led to believe that it was Darwin that had gone to
print with LTG before Sri Harold was appointed and the 1982 schism took
place, and that those books were pulped. I have always wanted to rea dthis
book to find out what all the fuss was about -- looks like a storm in a tea
cup to me.
Why? because now I know that this book wasn't published until 1990 under Sri
Harold's authority, and it still contains these "psychic" references in all
their blazing glory.
So what gives here? I have no idea, but along the way found a few clues. And
that is the poorly edited and obvious name changes, now that I know what I
know.
Of course it is entirely Sri Harold's choice to do as he sees fit and
beneficial. I have no beef nor criticism about this, only pointing it out
that by reading this book now, many other things are clearer, and the
dominoes line up far more logically to me, where before they didn't. I
didn;t know what the truth was, and now I am closer to it - IMO.
2) A friend was going to lend me this book last year -- I finally only got
it recently. Timely I would think. What a co-incidence. :)
3) In the foreword Harold also says this in the very beginning which I think
is a BIG CLUE :: " Here is Letters to Gail, Volume III. Paul Twitchell shows
himself to be the master compiler of the scattered wisdom that he has
brought together in the path we know as ECKANKAR. When the ancient mysteries
have gone so far afield that only *** distorted fragments remain *** in the
public mind, then the Order of the Vairagi Adepts sends forth a chosen one
fro among its band to restore truth, such as it is in the material domain."
and
"Paul had an uncanny knack for depicting the human condition through the **
writings left by other authors *** , but he took thier efforts a step
further and RECAST the SEED IDEAS so they fit into a grandeur, more
compelling spiritual FRAMEWORK.
*Artfully* he presented the subject of the power of imagination as Soul's
peculiar talent for survival in every universe of creation."
"Man thus lost his original freedom out of fear and obediance to external
authority, the crippler of the poetic genius that lives within him. The
divine imagination is the only faculty that can make one godlike, and it
acts in keeping with the Laws of ECK. Otherwise, man is doomed to the hell
of his own little self."
and he goes on with many other excellent comments
4) I am mindful that only recently Doug Marman asked a question in one of
his responses here about what is the primary motivation - cause -
principle - factor of the drive for Soul's survival ...... a cpl weeks later
I'm reading LTG to obtain the outer connection to the inner realisation. :)
5) Sri Harold goes on in the Foreword :
"Yet, some critics complain that too much attention is being paid to Paul
and the past. Why hark back upon yesterday? The present is now. But this
trail of letters from Paul to Gail offers a front row seat to *witness* how
the ECK brought Paul through the psychic and mind areas, which have troubled
so many of us.
"His journey ultimately brought him the pure spiritual realization of the
Mahanta, which is the natural longing of every Soul, including you."
6) Sri Harold mentions in the Afterword about Paul's over the top out of
balanced criticisms of the Catholic Church at that time. He then goes on to
spend 3 pages critiquing the Catholic Church, it's historuy, it;s chnages,
it's social level, and all sorts of things. Any Catholic reading this
section, imo, would not be able to see it any other way than an overt and
strident criticism of their faith by Sri Harold.
Of course, everyone's our pov varies .... the point being here is how this
notion applies right here and right now, imo. The way I see it is that
Harold was simply reviewing the history as he saw it and sharing the
important truths about it with his chelas . He isn't really being harsh at
all, and would have no ulterior motive against the Catholic Church.
And yet here we are yet again with someone being bailed up by others because
he has the temerity to re-hash the history of Eckankar and question some of
the things about it. Will we ever ever learn to stop such human reactions? I
don;t know, but I feel I know exactly why it occurs now, whereas many years
ago I did not. This section by harold tended to offer much more than just a
comment about the catholic Church and the ups and downs of Paul's own
consciousness.
You know, if it is OK for Paul, if it is OK for Harold to go completely out
fo balance .. why all the finger pointing when others are *percieived* to be
doing saomething similar, or chaising down an issue that other may have no
interest in? The answer as they say is simple, but each needs to come at
this from their own experience.
7) Sri Harold also said :
"The main difference between all other religions and ECKANKAR is that the
Mahanta is the word, He is the ECK."
"The survival of a religion depends upon more than miracles and prophecy.
Both were a strong part of the early Chrisitian church untill at least AD
200. But the churche's real loss at the death of Christ was that no living
individual could replace him as its inner and outer master."
"Once the light of spirituality has been lit in a new religion it must be
tended every moment. otherwise, the divine fire begins to flicker and go
out. The life giving spiritual element quickly gives way to FORMALISM."
8) And he also mentioned the word "schism" which I only recently posted
some info about regarding Christianity, Judaism and Islam in relation to
another topic.
"The church stumpled along in its evolution, fighting schism, until there
was no alternative but to create a more unified leadership role than "Church
Father", which was the ecclesiastical office that replaced the authority of
the apostles. In AD 590 the Roman Catholic chruch came to accept it;s first
POpe, Gregory I. The church leaders saw the need for a strong secualr head
if the church was to survive. But [none] had the power of the Word - the
Light and Sound of God. "
There have already been schisms in Eckankar after a short life, I am sure
there will be more ahead. It seems to be a clear human trait, imo.
------------------------------
HTHs
Sean
Sean
Spoiler "one who ruins an opponent's chances" is from 1950.
Spoil-sport attested from 1801.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=spoil&searchmode=none
Etznab
wrote:
>
> read more »
Sean,
I thought that was excellent and quite informative.
Yes, I have read all of that before about LTG3, but
thanks for reminding me and pointing out something
I overlooked.
Ultimately, when the book form of LTG3 came out
in 1990 the final editors were not Paul or Gail. In fact
(judging from the Forward) I don't even know that Gail
was consulted.
"The editors took the place of Gail ..." ?
I still wonder if any editing (in preparation for a book)
wasn't done to the letters by Paul or Gail years earlier,
because What was that Stewart character referring to?
Yes, somebody (at some time) appears to change the
name Kirpal Singh to Sudar Singh. My personal guess
would be that it happened during the reign of Darwin &
Gail Gross.
I'm saving a copy and the link to that post of yours,
Sean. Because it contained and was about a whole lot
more, IMO, than a name change in LTG3. I thought you
had a brainstorm of insights about a good number of
things concerning the path of Eckankar and its history.
There is something exciting about the fact I had not
really ever before saw the "whole picture" of Eckankar
(the outer history and how the teachings formed). Then
again, I have a good impression about what Eckankar
really is, to me. My own path, as Soul. It goes beyond
words and does not lend itself to limiting definitions ex-
cept as stepping-stones, perhaps, as aids to self and
God realization.
A part of the curiosity and criticism about the path
as it's described by others, I suppose, is because it
is not my path. My path is the one I know, not one I
have to guess about, look for others to point it out to
me, or have to search for like a hidden Easter Egg.
For about the past week I have seen the theme of
"Walking Your own Path to God" at church and in a
number of books I've been reading (and among other
places) Now I see that theme again after reading the
post you wrote.
Guess I'm just another one of those lonely oddballs :)
Etznab
Sean
Sean,
Etznab
-------------------------------
SEAN:
Nothing wrong with being an oddball - anyone who isn't has got to be mad as
a hatter :)
As to being lonely, well, to repeat a phrase I used recently, if you aren't
lonely, then you aren't doing it right!
One doesn't get to the destination by catching a crowded train running down
the same straight and narrow railway track all together singing Kumbaya in
unison, now do they? What has Paul T and Harold K and Doug M said about such
things ad nauseum, as a few examples?
Anyway, you have triggered a memory of mine that might be appropriate here :
long ago I was having a lucid experience with Wah Z at the Temple of ECK in
Chanhassen, on the inner [ obviously ].
Suurounding the Temple and covering the entire landscape there were what
looked like graves in a cemetary but much much prettier with crystals
unusual flower arrangements, and colourful designs and headstones and the
like.
Walking up closer to inspect a couple of these with Wah Z I noticed that
each had an engraving as well, like you would see on a grave that denoted
who the plot was for ..... the engraved golden plates were again all
different in design by upon each one was the individuals name and a few
words about them. Each chela chose the words and the designs for themselves,
and each chela was responsible for building their own little EK plot. [ EK
was not a typo ]
They weren't graves for the dead, but living monuments that were always
being changed and improved as the individual chose for themselves with total
freedom. The whole landscape shone with colours and there was also music
which permeated the airways and other things like the sound of running water
or the sound of bells etc. It was incredibly beautiful. Wah Z had a few
things to say, ,nothing much but I do remember his beaming smile and the joy
he had for all as he strolled quietly along the pathways with me.
Now, to steal, lift or plagiarise another's fine work here ... Please do not
ask me how I know this. If anyone does ask, I will have to make up a whopper
of a story to avoid admitting I..........
anyway, I must say I really enjoyed hearing what YOU had to say above, and I
feel that I understand you completely here.
Thanks for the discussion, as always
Warmly,
Sean
Sean
You have motivated me to look into those books .. as I have never read the
novels before. THX Sean
"JR" <johnr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d5b6c75-57ad-40a3...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 8:11 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> Are you suggesting that changing the name Kirpal Singh to
> Sudar Singh makes Sudar Singh a real living person?
>
> Etznab
Sudar Singh had darker, thicker eyebrows than anyone which left a
light shadow over his eyes, but not so to veil them. He did not have
cheekbones like most, but cheekbones which laid flat to catch the line
from below the eyes which followed the sockets down to the chin. His
beard was trimmed and closer to the face without hair on his neck
below his jaw. The turban I see was neither gray or blue, but a light
grayish blue. He kept a low profile and thus was able to allow Rebazar
Tarzs into his home without too much attention to test and serve Paul.
If you begin searching for and analyzing everything you can find which
Julian Johnson has said and written, I am certain you will find the
connection between Paul, Sudar Singh, Johnson (not related to Ward),
and Rebazar Tarz. This means digging through the attics of Johnson's
loving relatives and friends. Maybe someone could verify the
connections between the dates of Talons and Dharma and Paul's residing
in Allahabad which Sudar Singh chose for safety which was Southeast of
the main Sufi center.
Keep in mind words are not important, but the practice of Soul Travel
and learning how to directly project into the God Worlds was the
purpose behind the message of Spiritual Freedom also known as Jivan
Mukti. Reading the ECK novellas carefully may reveal that it was at
this time Paul learned of Venus and the City of Retz and its possible
role in the future. Arguing about who said what and at what time is a
deliberate distraction and serves no real purpose except to play into
the psuedo-authority game which makes people think highly about
themselves when the verbiage really adds up to nothing as defined by
experience. Sudar Singh had a quick wit, a sharp eye, and could zero
in on an important insight with a pleasant smile that left his
listeners unaware of what they had just discovered within themselves
until after the Satsang.
Please do not ask me how I know this. If anyone does ask, I will have
to make up a whopper of a story to avoid admitting I..........
JR
Sean
This is a key point in Etznab's reply, that has been previously missed by
others, ....
> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter
> Fivehttp://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
>
> Well, once again David Lane has strayed far from reality into his own
> special world of innuendo. I happen to have been working as co-Editor of
> the
> ECK World News with David Stewart at that time when he spoke with David
> Lane. I remember when David Stewart told me of this meeting. Although I
> had
> never seen the originals of the Letters to Gail, I wasn't terribly
> surprised
> about the editing, since I had seen the original The Far Country
> manuscript,
> along with a few others, and I had seen the same type of editing made by
> Paul.
>
Etznab says ::
Who does Doug think did the editing in LTG3? Paul or Gail?
That wasn't clear to me. It could almost be read as if he sugg-
esting Paul.
Check the first quote you gave, the last sentence.
Would Paul Twitchell edit LTG3? I can't be sure because the
book I see has a copyright of 1990, long after Paul died.
-------------------------------
Isn't this something that Doug Marman did not address directly in the Whole
Truth?
Of course it is .... Doug missed this issue about name changes in LTG III
because David Lane never mentioned it in his initial book about Eckankar.
It's fallen between the cracks so to speak ... yet this is NOT a criticism
of Doug at all -- so please don;t try and turn it into one. Who voted him as
being the one who had to explain every single point by point of every book
ever published?
For a start that wasn't Doug's motivation at all from my perspective anyway.
And bneither do I see anything in Etznab's quesries here that are
complaining about it ... seems to me he is simply bringing up something that
HE is not quite clear on as yet.
So, imo, of course it is clear that Paul didn't edit LTG III ....
again let's look at what Doug actually said again ...
> Although I had
> never seen the originals of the Letters to Gail, I wasn't terribly
> surprised
> about the editing, since I had seen the original The Far Country
> manuscript,
> along with a few others, and I had seen the same type of editing made by
> Paul.
and this too
> Then why did Paul suddenly change? Why, after Paul had been so open >
> about crediting the teachers he had studied with up until 1966 - .....
Sean: Isn't it clear as crystal that Doug could NOT be talking about Paul
and LTG III here ... but the earlier versions ?????
Obviously, one wouldn;t expect a later book to revert back to the original
names used in Paul;'s old 1950's manuscripts that he edited and published
from 1966.
Yet there is a totally different point being raised here by etznab, and even
if it is of minute value or importance in the big picture, the guy is a man
of details as Doug is ... there;s is nothing worng in using one's mental
abilities you know!!
The point being that Etznab is simply interested in *uncovering* what were
thos original names that were penned by paul t in 1964 and 1965 up to within
6 months of him starting Eckankar officially??
Is there really anything wrong in finding this out, and knowing baout it
when no one that I know of has EVER brought this issue up on a.r.e. in the
12 years that I have been in and out of it .... what's all the hyeractive
reactions about, when DOUG's posts and Doug's books do NOT actually address
this question directly? [ that I am aware of .. I could have missed it of
course ]
If it wasn't for folsk like Etznab and Doug, and the many others who have
gone digging or simply raised inconsistencies no one would have a clue what
on earth happened.
And earth is as important as anywhere else, otherwise what on earth are WE
all doing here anyway????
Good pick up Etznab ..... all I can add is that there are many many
passages in LTG III that just don't add up for accuracy.......... though of
course the real value is undoubtedly in the white spaces <smile>
.... BUT why kneejerk and assume that Etznab and others aren't capable of
comprehending the big picture, and inner insights and inner experiences.....
and the overall wisdom being shared .... as well as the mundane details
inside of all the one head and the one heart ... ???
I'd like to see someone here lay that sort of criticism onto Doug and see
where it got ya. hadeeha!
<smile>
Rich
> On Sep 28, 6:34 am, "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote:
>> Why has Etznab posted seemingly everything but this? Because it
>> spoils his
>> inquest?
>>
>> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter
>> Fivehttp://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
<SNIP>
>
> You think I was not familiar with that section?
No, that's my point. I see you repeatedly asking questions that you know
the answers to. It's a spoiler because it contains answers that anyone will
know of when they see you ask repeated questions. It's like, 'Why doesn't he
know and remember that already?'
> In fact I have
> quoted parts of it here before.
>
> The recent reference about editing in LTG3 was from another
> source.
>
> Are you suggesting that changing the name Kirpal Singh to
> Sudar Singh makes Sudar Singh a real living person?
Bogus question! I made no comments on the quotes. Nor have I ever said
anything indicating such a foolish idea. However, in kind I'd say it's clear
that your inquest is full of innuendo and not very subtle suggestion of the
opposite.
> One of the points I'm trying to illustrate is how the versions
> of Eckankar books I grew up with were not all factually true.
"Trying" to illustrate? You already have, many times, and starting a long
time ago. Check right above if you forgot that Doug talks about in that
Chapter. Tell us something new.:-|
> And if I were to pass on the false information unknowingly,
> that is one thing. To pass it on knowingly is another. Ideally,
> I would love to be familiar with the original history, & with the
> original names.
But you do know! You have been familiar with Dialog for many years now. You
are circling back as if you aren't. That's my point.
> BTW, David Lane contributed greatly - probably more than
> any Eckist publicly did - to the uncovering of information of
> which many Eckists were ignorant. IMO, he helped to bring
> about two of Doug Marman's books and opened up dialogue
> on topics that I personally find quite interesting. (Would we
> have the dialogue and the books by Doug if it were not for
> what David Lane started?)
>
> Who does Doug think did the editing in LTG3? Paul or Gail?
Ask him, not me.
<snip 'wild guessing and speculation'>
Rich
> Rich wrote:
>
>
>> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Five by Doug
>> Marman
>> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eight by Doug
> Marman http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Eight.htm
Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eleven by Doug
Marman
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Eleven.htm
David tried to argue that Sudar's name in this article was a name
replacement for one of Paul's other teachers, but Sudar's name was side by
side with Kirpal's name, as well as Swami Premananda's name.
I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that show the
same thing: An article that ran in early 1966 called, Can You Be In Two
Places At The Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh, from Allahabad, India, along
with Bernard of England, a Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in
Maryland, Kirpal Singh of Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a Tibetan monk.
The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the November
1964 issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul talks about Rebazar
Tarzu [sic], who he "made contact with...through bilocation," and Kirpal
Singh as his teachers. These examples clearly show that both Sudar Singh and
Rebazar Tarzs were referred to, side by side with Kirpal Singh. It was not
until late 1966 before Paul suddenly stopped referring to Kirpal Singh.
The whole problem with David's argument is that Paul merely edited his
own writing. There is nothing wrong with this. David is trying to tell us,
however, that Paul's motivation for doing this was to cover up his past.
David doesn't have a single piece of evidence to support that this was
Paul's motivation, but for over 20 years David has been proclaiming this as
if it were a fact.
The truth is, however, that the only quote we have from Paul that shows
his motivations is the quote that I reprinted in Chapter Five, which makes
it clear that the reason Paul referred to Kirpal in his book, The Flute of
God, when it was first serialized, was because he felt that Kirpal was
sympathetic with his work. Therefore, when Paul learned that Kirpal was no
longer sympathetic, which it appears he learned in mid-1966, then this
offers a perfect explanation why Paul removed references to Kirpal in his
published writings.
David didn't let this matter drop easily, however. He argued his side
over a long series of posts. For example, the following is from one of these
series:
DAVID WROTE:
Twitchell was not as open about his teachers as you claim.
Tell me how many references do we see to L. Ron Hubbard?
Your point, apparently, is that Kirpal got nasty against Twitch in 66.
Okay, show US the PROOF...
That seems to be a reasonable request.
DOUG WROTE:
How many references do we see to L. Ron Hubbard? Well, let's see,
David, how many articles altogether do we see before 1965 by Paul? [Not
many.]
How many of them have some reference to one of his teachers? I think
the percentage is quite high [well over 50%]...
You have presented nothing more than a theory and a hypothesis. I have
shown how the evidence doesn't jive with your theory. So, I've offered
another theory. I've shown evidence to support my hypothesis, and I've shown
that it's consistent with the evidence available.
If you want to prove my theory wrong, all you have to do is show quotes
where Paul redacted Kirpal's name before 1966.
DAVID WROTE:
Dear Doug:
I don't think you get it.
Eckankar wasn't "officially" founded until October 22, 1965. 1966 is
just two plus moths away.
So, just a couple of months after Eckankar is officially founded guess
what we find?
Kirpal's name redacted.
DOUG WROTE:
No, David, it turns out that we do not find Kirpal's name being redacted
just a couple months after ECKANKAR was officially founded.
Go back and check your quotes. Paul ran three or four chapters of The
Flute of God in Orion magazine that contained Kirpal's name. This continued
until mid-1966. Then suddenly [in the November 1966 installment] none of the
further chapters contained Kirpal's name. And suddenly all the books and
materials written and printed by Paul after that no longer contain Kirpal's
name.
DAVID WROTE:
I have shown you an article in 1964 with the name of Sudar Singh in it.
DOUG WROTE:
The 1964 article that you showed with Sudar Singh's name also includes
Kirpal's name. So this isn't evidence of name redaction.
The other quote with Sudar Singh's name that occurred before the
founding of ECKANKAR was the quote that you redacted Sudar Singh's name
from. That quote also included Kirpal and Premananda's name.
DAVID WROTE:
Doug:
If I understand your theory correctly, then Paul edits out Kirpal's
name because Kirpal dissed Paul...
There may be a simpler explanation to all of this:
AFTER Paul creates Eckankar...he just changes the name infrastructure
and sets himself up with a past that CANNOT be traced historically.
Not to sound like Church Lady, but isn't that convenient?
DOUG WROTE:
No, David, you apparently do not understand my theory correctly.
I showed a quote from Paul where he clearly states that his reason for
mentioning Kirpal's name is because he feels Kirpal is sympathetic with
Paul's work. It has nothing to do with Kirpal dissing Paul. Even if Kirpal
politely stopped being supportive, or politely disagreed with Paul, that
would be enough reason for Paul, based on his own words, to no longer
continue referring to Kirpal.
However, we know from Kirpal's own words that he became openly critical
about Paul. So, it was not just a matter of polite disagreement...
Your "simpler" explanation doesn't fit the facts. Look at the Orion
magazine printings of The Flute of God chapters. The first few chapters that
ran to mid-1966 include Kirpal's name, as well as the name of Paul's other
teachers. This proves the changes did not begin when ECKANKAR was officially
founded, or even a few months later.
You see, David, it was when I realized that Paul was still openly
referring to the names of these other teachers well after he began ECKANKAR,
that was when I had to ask myself, well, why did Paul suddenly change his
approach?
<snip>
I then remembered how many of the early ECKists had followed Paul from
Kirpal's group and from L. Ron Hubbard's group. The idea of Paul trying to
cover up or deny his previous associations with those teachers is
ridiculous. There were way too many in ECK who knew all about Paul's past.
David's whole theory just doesn't work.
To summarize: David didn't have proof that Darwin was covering
something up. Even David admits this. David's claims that Paul was covering
up his past have also fallen apart. And as we have seen in Chapter Ten,
Harold brought out and spoke about Paul's past over a period of years and
numerous articles, contrary to David's assertions.
Therefore, the whole basis of David's book, that ECKANKAR covered up
some terrible information, is without any real support. It was a myth of
David's creation. How could such a review of ECKANKAR get so far off base?
<snip>
The Clash of Realities:
The discussion over plagiarism went through a long debate. Looking back
over the dialogue, however, I can see it was mainly a battle of
perspectives.
For example, Rich Smith responded to a challenge by David Lane, and
began posting a running percentage of all paragraphs that even remotely
resembled something that could have been copied. This sparked a new effort
by David and his supporters to itemize and total all of the known
similarities. To date, according to Rich's calculations, this total is still
less than 2% of Paul's written works.
[UPDATE: .7% - Paragraphs in "The Far Country" could not be substantiated]
Richard Pickett summarized the feelings of many ECKists:
Given Doug's explanation of routine journalistic practices during
Paul's time, it would not surprise me to find that less than 2% of what Paul
wrote was not original. However, Paul's original arrangement of the compiled
materials is indisputable. It is this unique arrangement of a wide array of
source materials that is Paul's unique contribution to the field of
religion.
Not surprisingly, this did not go over well with the detractors. They
still wanted to portray the matter of plagiarism as a huge issue, and the
fact that plagiarism was a common practice amongst journalists in Paul's day
seemed wrong to them.
<snip>
Even David recently admitted that plagiarism of itself was no longer
the issue, in his mind. David thinks the real issue, now, is over the fact
that readers thought they were reading Paul's words, or sometimes the words
of Rebazar Tarzs such as in The Far Country, yet these turned out in some
cases to be the words of Julian Johnson, or some other writer, instead.
David put it this way, during one of his many posts on this subject:
Again, the point I still don't get is this:
Why not have Rebazar's REAL dialogues?
You see, it is misleading to say Rebazar is talking when it is Julian
Johnson.
It is a very simple issue, regardless of Twitchell's motives.
While I agree that Twitchell may have had many differing motivations,
it still does not excuse the fact that he is misleading his reading
audience.
My response to David:
So, David, would you say it was misleading when Mohammed claimed that
the Koran came to him from Allah?
Or is it possible that this was the best way he knew to describe the
truth he wanted to share?
Would you say it was misleading to claim that Jesus spoke the words
credited to him in The Bible, after we find out that those words were never
his, nor were they written by the Apostles, but were written some 100-300
years after Jesus lived?
Or is it possible that the writers of the Gospels were trying to
portray a greater truth, to give the reader a feeling of being right there
seeing and hearing Jesus speak, and used the form of parables and outward
stories to convey Jesus' teaching?
Would you say it was misleading for Plato to claim that Socrates spoke
those words credited to him, when we find out that indeed Socrates never did
say them?
Or is it possible that Plato was more interested in the truth
expressed, and found it best put in the form of a dialogue rather than a
dissertation, and wanted to give credit to his teacher?
I think the problem here is that if we follow your outline of what is
misleading, we will be forced to reject just about every spiritual teaching
known to man. Why? Because you are trying to judge these writings of
spiritual truths by your own culture-bound criteria...
In other words, Paul cast the material in the form of a dialogue with
an ECK Master because, quite simply, he felt it was a better way of
portraying the truths he was trying to share...
I think this is all that Paul cared about. I think that was his
intention, and it was certainly his choice to make as an author and creative
writer.
If you can only accept Truth in the form that you demand, it is likely
that you will miss its real depth and manifold forms.
If we look at Paul's own words, from his Introduction to The Far
Country, this becomes even clearer.
For example, Paul says that he wrote The Far Country out of "The deep
concern which I have for the human race." Notice he did not say it was
because of Rebazar Tarzs' concern.
Paul says that he tried to lay down "the patterns of the most
breathtaking and far reaching esoteric teachings known to man," not Rebazar
Tarzs' words and teaching. These statements give us glimpses into Paul's
intention and motivation for writing The Far Country.
However, when Paul describes Rebazar Tarzs as the "moving figure" in
his book, we sense the importance of the role that the Living Master plays.
This is why he states that "the relationship between the ECK chela and the
MAHANTA, the Living ECK Master is clearly outlined."
This explains why Paul used this same form of dialogue with Rebazar
Tarzs in his books, Stranger By The River, and Dialogues With The Master,
which were both published a few months before The Far Country.
Therefore, we can see that the image of Rebazar Tarzs looms large in
Paul's writings because the relationship of the Inner Master is central to
the teachings of ECKANKAR. This is one of the most important elements of
what Paul is trying to impart. The immense power and strength that comes
through these images to the reader cannot be underestimated in the role they
play with Paul's teachings. Paul is transmitting an essential inner truth
through this form of writing.
Paul writes, "Rebazar Tarzs never lets up with the reader, who is
considered the chela, the God seeker." Paul didn't write that Rebazar Tarzs
never let up with him, Paul, whom Rebazar Tarzs was addressing in the book.
Therefore, Paul is the one who is addressing the reader. Paul is casting
himself as the God seeker for the reader to identify with, in this story of
spiritual discovery.
Imagine how differently this book would have read if Paul had cast
himself as the God-Realized Master. Clearly, Paul is not trying to say that
these are his own teachings, but it is the forceful image of Rebazar Tarzs
and the "constant revelation of the greater results of Soul Travel with each
trip into the inner worlds," that Paul is trying to communicate.
If there is any problem at all, it is that Paul doesn't specifically
say that his book should not be read literally, like Mark Twain's famous
introduction to his book, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:
NOTICE
Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be
prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished;
persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
By the Order of the Author.
However, as we will soon see, Paul made statements not far from this.
This whole issue is one that has special meaning for me, since I faced
this strange paradox for myself when I first tried recording my own
experiences and inner teachings with the ECK Masters.
I soon learned that there is no way you can take down words while in
the ECKshar state of consciousness, as Paul called it, as if it was some
form of dictation. The information that comes through from such inner
transmissions is far beyond mere words. Yet, like the poet searching for the
right phrase, it is possible to let the body consciousness cast about for
language to communicate something of the reality that is taking place. Later
on one has to edit and rewrite, looking for a saying or a quote that
captures the essence, or an image or feeling that can provide links to
connect the reader with the spiritual currents.
I believe this is exactly what Paul meant when he said that his
writings in Dialogues With The Master were as close as possible to the
original words Rebazar Tarzs spoke. Not that he was taking a literal
dictation, but that he was trying to record, as closely as possible, the
meaning of the wisdom he learned from the great ECK Master.
Etznab
> Rich wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
>
> >> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Five by Doug
> >> Marman
> >>http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> > Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eight by Doug
>
> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eleven by Doug
There was a section from your quotes of Doug Marman where
I believe he tried to tell the truth about Rebazar Tarzs:
**************************************************************************
My response to David:
**************************************************************************
I thought the "spin-cycle" clicked into high gear sometime after
that section, so I didn't illustrate the remainder of Doug's text. The
part I isolated, however, held the key, to me.
"In other words, Paul cast the material in the form of a dialogue
with an ECK Master because, quite simply, he felt it was a better
way of portraying the truths he was trying to share..."
Putting that into context with what came before it, II agree.
Etznab
Rich
Does that in your mind negate the reality of Rebazar Tarzs?
Etznab
Rich,
I have never met Rebazar Tarzs in the physical. Is that the reality
to which you refer?
This is what I've been searching to determine. If Rebazar Tarzs is
a person, by that name, with a physical body to match.
I don't know that he is. Therefore, I suspect he might be something
other.
Still trying to determine what exactly.
Etznab
Rich
<SNIP>
>>> The part I isolated, however, held the key, to me.
>>
>>> "In other words, Paul cast the material in the form of a dialogue
>>> with an ECK Master because, quite simply, he felt it was a better
>>> way of portraying the truths he was trying to share..."
>>
>>> Putting that into context with what came before it, II agree.
>>
>> Does that in your mind negate the reality of Rebazar Tarzs?
>
> Rich,
>
> I have never met Rebazar Tarzs in the physical. Is that the reality
> to which you refer?
>
> This is what I've been searching to determine. If Rebazar Tarzs is
> a person, by that name, with a physical body to match.
>
> I don't know that he is. Therefore, I suspect he might be something
> other.
>
> Still trying to determine what exactly.
OK I'll rephrase. Does that negate your version of reality of Rebazar Tarzs
existence?
Etznab
"That"? You mean the quote by Doug?
Etznab
Rich
Rich
> Rich wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Five by Doug
>>> Marman
>>> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eight by Doug
>> Marman http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Eight.htm
>
> Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Eleven by Doug
> Marman
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Eleven.htm
Excerpt from Dialogue in the Age of Criticism Chapter Twelve by Doug
> Marman
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Twelve.htm
Suddenly, the Tibetan ECK Master, Rebazar Tarzs, was standing before me
in the dim alley where I walked. His gaze was intense.
"Did you understand what the Living ECK Master was trying to show you
with your last experience?" he said, abruptly. "I don't think you do!"
The sudden appearance of this maroon robed adept sparked a deep emotion
within me, for he had been in my thoughts constantly all day. For some
reason the sound of his voice and images of his face had been just beneath
the surface of my thinking, as if about to emerge. And now here he was, with
his black hair and beard fading into the dark shadows of the twilight, and a
peaceful glint in his eyes.
"Do you mean the Soul Travel experience last night?" I asked.
He nodded.
"I thought Harold was letting me have a chance to see that Soul
survives as the individual. That the individual is the true state of Soul."
Rebazar Tarzs turned to see the curious face of a black and white cat
peering through an opening in the fence. The cat seemed caught between some
inner desire to approach this ECK Master and its natural instincts for
survival through safety. Rebazar Tarzs took a few steps and knelt down to
scratch its furry ears, and the cat purred.
As I felt the power of the ECK Master's presence move with his
attention to the cat, I began to wonder if indeed I had missed something
very important from my experiences. Finally, he turned to me and said:
"Now look, this Living ECK Master we have is a very subtle Master and
not many understand him. But I am going to be a bit more blunt when I say
that he was trying to move you to that state where you could see the whole
of ECKANKAR. You are close to catching it, and when you do, nothing will be
able to shake it from you.
"You might think that after all these years studying you would have
caught this secret, but remember not many will reach this point in this
lifetime. Look at all the masses of people on this planet. Look at movement
after movement. They continue to abuse and take advantage of the individual
because they have not understood.
"The one thing you should always remember is that all these movements,
all these groups, are battling for the individual. They have found the
secret that only Soul, the individual, is the central operating unit in the
worlds of God. Nothing can happen except through Soul. Nothing can exist
without It. The ECK, or reality, will only respond to Soul, and nothing
else. This means that whoever can capture Soul, like you might net the fish
of the sea as the Christians put it, then you will have the greatest power
known.
"So why does man continually throw himself into groups and movements? He
sees himself as a Buddhist, Democrat, Communist or a thousand other
designations, but never as Soul, the individual. He feels the need to
belong, so he searches out a group consciousness. He dearly loves to live by
rules and regulations, so he joins an organization. Alone he feels helpless,
so he takes part in some action team with high aspirations to change the
world. This is Soul's way of looking for survival.
"But one day Soul outgrows these outer movements, and they lose their
fascination. Soul begins to ask questions like; Who am I? Where am I going?
But no one can answer these except the individual. Then Soul begins the long
hard road to extricate Itself and regain Its individuality. This is when the
ECK Masters step in to offer their assistance, and thus the path of ECKANKAR
appears when the time is ripe. Now do you see how this all ties together?"
"I think so," I answered. "But then how can there be an organization
carrying the name of ECKANKAR if it is an individual path? Isn't this a
contradiction?"
"There is not much in this world that isn't a contradiction," he said.
"When the ECK, the life force, flows into this world it takes every form. It
might be a flower, a river, or a solar system. It might be a mirage in the
desert or a vision of God. The ECK flows into this world but never finds
completion, or perfection, so it is always changing. It is always dying in
its old forms to be born into the new. It might come together to produce a
spiritual era, or it might hide for ages behind the traditional teachings,
known only to a few. The ECK is all of life so don't try to fit it in some
little box."
<SNIP>
I have studied the lines of spiritual teachers in many traditions,
including Sufi, Sikh, Tibetan, Buddhist and Sant Mat lineages. Although the
outer teachings are often passed down from generation to generation and are
easily traced, I rarely found this to be true with the inner consciousness.
Rumi's teaching, for example, contains an awareness and understanding far
beyond any of his successors, even though his teachings have been passed on
down through the modern day Mevlevi Order.
Although the fundamental practices of Buddhism can be found from its
inception to the teachings of today, the inner consciousness is not at all
the same. The enlightenment of the Zen teachers in the last hundred years
may have a connection to those of five hundred years ago, but they are
hardly similar. Certain images may be common, but huge changes in
consciousness have taken place, and the attainments of the teachers has
varied greatly.
Paul once said that the line of ECK Masters is not the same as any
traditional religion, because he was referring to this inner consciousness,
not the outward form. But what confused me was discovering this
consciousness had such a singular identity down through the time of Guru
Nanak. I could not trace it back any further than that.
Although Kabir is considered by many scholars to be the father of Sant
Mat, I could not find that same singular flame in his teachings. Kabir's
teachings show all the signs of the high teachings of ECK as Paul pointed
out, however it seems to me as if Kabir's teaching consciousness belongs to
an earlier era, like many of the Sufis before him.
Then, what was I seeing? What was this singular consciousness?
If such continuity, such a clear identity existed through all of the
writings of these spiritual teachers, then must not such a consciousness
derive from some One? As I asked myself this question, the whole meaning
became clearer. Such continuity could only be kept if it was in the hands of
one being. Only Soul can hold such a continuity of consciousness and
identity intact.
But what Being could carry this flame of consciousness since the time
of Guru Nanak, almost 500 years ago?
No sooner had I asked my question when I realized the answer. The image
of Rebazar Tarzs filled my awareness, and it seemed as if a great mystery
was being revealed.
This consciousness could not have been handed down, or it would have
changed shape and form to match the consciousness of each individual
teacher. What I was seeing was in fact the fountain and wellspring that each
of these teachers had derived their inspiration and teaching from.
I felt a deep change come over me upon this realization. It changed
everything I saw about the teachings of ECK. I suddenly realized how little
I really knew about this teacher Paul spoke so often about.
It seemed as if, inwardly, some part of me was standing next to Rebazar
Tarzs, as I thought about him. An image came to me of a cliff looking out
over the mountains and valleys that reached out before him like a vast
ocean. It seemed like Northern Tibet, or somewhere in that region of the
world. In the presence of this Being, looking out over the expanse of the
whole world, I understood something I had never known before.
I have always wondered about Paul's comment that Rebazar Tarzs was over
500 years old. What an outrageous statement. Why even say such things when
there is nothing to prove or verify such a claim? But now it seemed as if it
all fit together. It was just another breadcrumb on the trail that Paul had
left behind. It was just another sacred stone that I needed to return to its
source.
Turning my attention back to this Being, Rebazar Tarzs, his thoughts
came to me from within my own awareness, as if coming from some deep well:
"We each stand at the center of a long line of spiritual beings
reaching forever into the heart of God. It is as if half are before us and
half behind.
"This is true for everyone.
"Therefore, we come into this world both to teach certain others and to
learn from those who came here to teach us."
I felt the greatest feeling of love and humility from his words. It
seemed to touch all beings and all of life.
"Who are your teachers?" I asked Rebazar Tarzs.
His thoughts came again like from a deep well within me:
"Beings of pure Action. Beyond speech."
"The Silent Ones," I thought.
The image of Rebazar Tarzs shaking his head caught my attention.
"Mere words and names trying to describe what has no name," came the
inner wisdom.
And then I saw an inner image much different than I expected. Looking
across the centuries in awe of the subtlety that Rebazar Tarzs' touch had
left upon the world, I could now see that this was nothing next to the
invisible imprint of those Beings who were his teachers.
"My teachers leave not even a trace upon the lips," came his thoughts.
"One cannot distinguish their acts from the Sugmad, Itself."
My understanding of the mission of these spiritual travelers we call
the ECK Masters has changed. I now see something completely new and
meaningful in Paul's use of Rebazar Tarzs' image in the teachings of
ECKANKAR. For the first time the reality of it all sank in, because, you
see, although the spiritual teachers through the last centuries have
captured glimpses and elements of this inner flame, Paul's teaching for the
first time brought us to its source.
Now I was seeing THE ECKANKAR, and the whole of the Consciousness. It
was a flame watched over for the last 500 years by Rebazar Tarzs, and now
being brought out directly for the first time. As Paul had said, even though
he made his first contact through Sudar Singh, it was not until he met
Rebazar Tarzs that he began to see the whole of the teachings of ECKANKAR.
Guru Nanak, when asked, would not say who his teacher was. Perhaps, he
realized as Paul did, that there was Another. Eventually Paul realized how
he had been led from teacher to teacher under the invisible influence of
Rebazar Tarzs.
Paul scoured the writings of mystics and saints, following a thread and
searching through the spiritual teachings of the world, trying to find that
One. He was tracing this same flame just as I had. No wonder he gathered the
writings of Julian Johnson, Paul Brunton, Annie Besant, Madame Blavatsky,
Guru Nanak, and dozens of others. Paul himself was returning sacred stones.
He was gathering sparks that had been sent out from the same flame, to bring
the teaching back to its source. Back to the whole of the Consciousness.
It is, after all just as Paul had said. And I realized that in some way
I had found myself caught up in this archetypal story of returning sacred
stones as well.
To discover who our Teacher is - to become conscious of those who have
come here to teach us, is a part of what it means to return the sacred
stones. And this is the heart and core of the ECK teachings: we must find
our Teacher. It is both an inner and outer search.
It began for me with a few strange words from Harold. Indeed, there is
no difference between perception and creation when it comes to true
Utterance. It is only there, where the two meet that the Path of ECK can be
found.
This is the meaning of a living teaching.
<SNIP>
This, of course, was my own experience, and it may not mean anything to
anyone else. However, just like the archetypal story of the sacred stones, I
believe this story has a universal meaning.
Having returned to the source, I have also learned something else. I
found an organic change taking place within me, like a physical connection
had been restored.
I believe it was this missing ingredient that has caused spiritual
"desire to run rampant," as Mysti Easterwood put it. What we really needed
was more of WHAT IS. It was as if Paul, through his inner link, had brought
forth the inner teachings, yet had left the physical link for someone else
to restore. With this new connection, the teachings became more grounded for
me, both spiritually and physically. I was finally seeing the whole of
ECKANKAR.
In one of Harold's talks, he describes an old letter of Paul's that he
found, where Paul writes about a being who visited him when he was eight
years old. "The being said he would look after Paul's spiritual welfare
until Paul reached maturity," said Harold. Paul would have turned eight in
1917, only a few years after Babuji became the Sant Sat Guru of the Parent
Faith. Babuji died in October 1949, only one year before Paul joined Swami
Premananda's ashram, as Paul began looking for his new spiritual teacher.
Eventually Paul made contact with Rebazar Tarzs, who showed him the complete
teachings of ECKANKAR.
In other words, Paul did not give out all of the teachings during his
six years as the Living ECK Master, nor can any Master, because it is the
search and discovery of the untold teachings that make up the Path Itself.
This is an inner path, but there is also a physical connection that needs to
be made. The physical link also carries some of the current to complete the
circuit, which is why a physical Master is also needed.