Four Fundamentals of ECK
TD (GEOFF)
THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
1. Self-discipline.
2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
I'll start with my take on these in reverse order (ala Letterman):
4. Doesn't have a thing to do with me reading the ECK books, but rather
contemplating the blessings that the Holy Spirit brings every day. This
practice brings about an attitude of gratitude, which cannot help but
open my heart.
3. Do all I do unconditionally, and surrender to the highest inner state
of consciousness to take care of my unfoldment from there. This
practice helps keep my heart open by eliminating fear and worry.
2. Maintain contact with the Holy Spirit. This practice brings an
attitude of grace, of being fully in the present moment.
1. No real explanation needed, except to say that without self
discipline, how can I keep up with the other fundamentals?
Ok then, Geoff
Anne
> What folks should know are the basic practices of ECKANKAR.
>
> THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
>
> 1. Self-discipline.
> 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
> 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
> 4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
>
> I'll start with my take on these in reverse order (ala Letterman):
>
> 4. Doesn't have a thing to do with me reading the ECK books, but rather
> contemplating the blessings that the Holy Spirit brings every day. This
> > practice brings about an attitude of gratitude, which cannot help but
> open my heart.
Oh, I really like the way you said this here. In
the beginning years of Eckankar, I read everything
and constantly. Now, I don't read so much
anymore. I do have a practice now to read one
page of the Shariyat, BK.2 every weekday. I am
enjoying it immensely. There is much more there
in form and structure, than the writing, which I
also feel inspired by. It's well done.
But I have to agree with you. Attitude is
everything to me. Along with learning to remember
the practice of gratitude and tolerance for
keeping an open heart, is the practice of
acceptance that all is always well, of allowing,
and of being. Simply being in the moment and what
it brings. I
>
> 3. Do all I do unconditionally, and surrender to the highest inner state
>
> of consciousness to take care of my unfoldment from there. This
> practice helps keep my heart open by eliminating fear and worry.
I agree and I don't think there is more I can add
right now to that one. For me acceptance and
surrender are a lot the same critter. I almost
unconsciously now find myself doing little inner
"exercises" of surrender when faced with a
situation that causes me discomfort. I have
learned to love my contentment and treasure the
state of being that leads to it. I don't give my
contentment away to less pleasant stuff so easily
anymore. ;-)
>
> 2. Maintain contact with the Holy Spirit. This practice brings an
> attitude of grace, of being fully in the present moment.
Again, well said. I practice Oneness with spirit,
resting in the knowledge that I am part of It and
It is part of me. I don't care if one chooses to
call it ECK (as I do), Howdy Doody, or the Force.
What drives me to stay in that blissful oneness is
that I have learned to trust it implicitly. And
when, I don't trust, it is still there, when I
remember. It has taught me to trust myself.
>
> 1. No real explanation needed, except to say that without self
> discipline, how can I keep up with the other fundamentals?
Yeah, I have found that which used to be self
discipline has become autonomic in some places,
and in others more conscious, and in others I'm
still at it (especially learning to enjoy taking
physical exercise, but I'm getting better at it,
lol, and I don't separate it from being a
spiritual event either. I think all things are
spiritual events, though).
Thanks, this was fun to talk about...
I don't know why your messages are repeating...but
they are in my system, though I am getting no
message from Norton/security system about a virus.
Is that you? I don't really know that much about
those things...
Huuuuuuuu,
Anne
TD (GEOFF)
As I was reading them I realize that I got my interpretation numbers mixed
up: My interpretation #3 below should have been labled #2, and #3 should have
been labelled #2 (and flipped around of course to adhere to the "Letterman"
convention).
Ok then, Geoff
--------------------
HU 4 God
Welcome back. BTW, I don't see Geoff's messages repeating. Could it be
your server?
--
In Spirit,
Jackie
@->->--
"Anne" <rossa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C658C0...@earthlink.net...
Anne
> Hi Anne,
>
> Welcome back. BTW, I don't see Geoff's messages repeating. Could it be
> your server?
Thanks for the welcome back, Jackie. Good to hear
your "voice" again. I think it must have been my
server if you didn't see. Anyhoo, it's stopped
now...works for me, lol...
Love,
Anne
p.s. Gary and I have been reading Harry Potter and
have just fallen in love. We just started the
fourth book. You know, we have both read a lot of
sf/fantasy, and we both think this is the best
fantasy we've ever read. Guess we're just big
kids, lol...
HU 4 God
I've read all 4 books too. In fact, I just finished reading books 1-3 a
second time. I'm now on the Lord of the Rings and savoring it slowly.
See ya around,
Jackie
Lurk
TD (GEOFF) wrote:
> What folks should know are the basic practices of ECKANKAR.
Geoff, you asked me to comment on these points. I think you wanted to
know what trouble I had with them, if any.
>
> THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
>
> 1. Self-discipline.
No problem with self discipline if such discipline arises naturally out
of the process of a person deciding for themselves and not some
idealized spiritual carrot their chasing because it was dangle before
them by some authority figure who claims to hold the highest
consciousness IN THE WORLD.
> 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit. In eckankar, the
term mahanta gets conflated into two meanings: mahanta referring to
Harold and, mahanta referring to a state of consciousness. And then when
you throw into the mix that conjuring up of Harold's form, then I think
you have a mess. So I like the ideas of relying spirit and feel
eckankar's semantic scheme lends itself to misinterpretation and abuse.
I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in touch with
their own spiritual nature by using a master's form. Seems
counterproductive to me and facilitates dependency instead of SELF reliance.
> 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
It is great to do spiritual exercises, but I'm not fond of the
hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds these exercises in eckankar. Many of
the spiritual exercises I'm familiar with were subject to self delusion.
> 4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
(When they use the word eck here does it mean spirit or eckankar?)
True according to whom? This is a precept authorities like to throw in
for good measure so they can always blame the spiritual student for any
and all failures.
Anything can be explained by saying the student did not truly
contemplate the works of eck.
Jan4litsnd
Enjoyed reading both Geoff's and Anne's thinking about the Four Fundamentals of
ECK.
I don't see Geoff's messages repeating either.
Jan
Rich
Lurk wrote:
>
> TD (GEOFF) wrote:
>
> > What folks should know are the basic practices of ECKANKAR.
>
>
> Geoff, you asked me to comment on these points. I think you wanted to
> know what trouble I had with them, if any.
>
> > > THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
> >
> > 1. Self-discipline.
>
>
> No problem with self discipline if such discipline arises naturally out
> of the process of a person deciding for themselves
Well good, you agree with this 'fundamental' even though you focus
on ways<SNIPPED> that it can fail.
> > 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit.
Great, you agree with this 'fundamental' too, even though you focus
on ways<SNIPPED> that it can be misapplied.
> > 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
>
>
> It is great to do spiritual exercises,
OK... you agree with this 'fundamental' even though you focus on
ways<SNIPPED> that it can be misconstrued.
> > 4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
>
> (When they use the word eck here does it mean spirit or eckankar?)
>
> True according to whom? This is a precept authorities like to throw in
> for good measure so they can always blame the spiritual student for any
> and all failures.
>
> Anything can be explained by saying the student did not truly
> contemplate the works of eck.
Couldn't find anything in here...
Read the Eckist answers to this one to find the answers to your
questions, and see that only you introduced blame as an option.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TD (GEOFF)
Lurk. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Ok then, Geoff
------------------
Lurk wrote:
> TD (GEOFF) wrote:
>
> > What folks should know are the basic practices of ECKANKAR.
>
> Geoff, you asked me to comment on these points. I think you wanted to
> know what trouble I had with them, if any.
>
> >
> > THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
> >
> > 1. Self-discipline.
>
> No problem with self discipline if such discipline arises naturally out
> of the process of a person deciding for themselves and not some
> idealized spiritual carrot their chasing because it was dangle before
> them by some authority figure who claims to hold the highest
> consciousness IN THE WORLD.
>
So, I will capture a point of agreement in our growing list: Self discipline is
good if such discipline arises naturally out of a person deciding for themselves
(i.e. stress the "self" in self discipline).
Of course, I'd agree with you on the next clause if I thought it really added
anything not obvious. Of course you know where we will have to agree to
disagree. Keep trollling... ;-)
>
> > 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
>
> Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit. In eckankar, the
> term mahanta gets conflated into two meanings: mahanta referring to
> Harold and, mahanta referring to a state of consciousness. And then when
> you throw into the mix that conjuring up of Harold's form, then I think
> you have a mess. So I like the ideas of relying spirit and feel
> eckankar's semantic scheme lends itself to misinterpretation and abuse.
>
Agreement point: Inner reliance on ones spirit (can I say "higher self"?) is
good.
>
> I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in touch with
> their own spiritual nature by using a master's form. Seems
> counterproductive to me and facilitates dependency instead of SELF reliance.
>
In my mind, it is just different styles of psyche. Some folks cannot yet accept
that it is actually "them" (I am That, and all that), or maybe it is better to
say, that we are all the One (as in God, or whatver). In any event, at this
stage in unfoldment, folks would rather receive their inner guidance from a wise
old man, someone they respect, etc.
Not sure you agree with this, but I would fall back on our previous discussion
where it seemed we agreed that the message is the important thing to judge, and
not the form that it takes. My take on this fundamental (actually misnumbered
below), is that it captures the essence of surrender and doing things
unconditionally, letting the future take care of itself.
>
> > 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
>
> It is great to do spiritual exercises, but I'm not fond of the
> hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds these exercises in eckankar. Many of
> the spiritual exercises I'm familiar with were subject to self delusion.
>
Agreement point: It is great to do spiritual exercises.
By self delusional exercises, do you mean those that simply take one in
imagination to a place suggested by the crafter of the exercise and that is the
criteria for success?
I am almost willing to agree with this, in that I prefer those experiences where
I get some interesting insight that I can bring back, or where the Sound and
Light are so strong that I can just bask and relax, simply bringing back a sense
of recharged batteries. If I do get a strong sense of "where" I am in terms of
the various God Worlds, etc., I apply the Law of Silence. It is nobodies
business but mine and the inner Master's.
>
> > 4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
>
> (When they use the word eck here does it mean spirit or eckankar?)
>
I use ECK to mean Holy Spirit. So for me this means, as I say below,
contemplation on how the Holy Spirit works in my daily life, opening my heart
with gratitude.
>
> True according to whom? This is a precept authorities like to throw in
> for good measure so they can always blame the spiritual student for any
> and all failures.
>
For me it means that the feeling of an open heart rings true. In other words,
the flow of gratitude and an opening heart, mean that I am not just mentally
saying "I am thankful for this, that or the other thing."
My kids are an example of a blessing that almost always cause me to open my
heart. All I have to do is think of the experience of watching my first son
being born. As he took his first breath, I could almost see Soul come into the
body as he changed from a waxy yellow to a living pink. For some reason, that
image fills me with a sense of wonder and awe and inspiration.
>
> Anything can be explained by saying the student did not truly
> contemplate the works of eck.
>
I suspect that we could agree on the following: True contemplation on the
blessings that Holy Spirit has bestowed upon you is a good practice.
Thanks again...
Ok then, Geoff
Michael
"HU 4 God" <hu4...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4Gl98.26080$AV5.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Let me know when you get to Antoine De Saint Exupery, folks <G>
The Little Prince is a classic of modern myth!!
But yeah... Harry Potter is pretty OK as well... Did you know that Rowlings is
credited with saving literacy in Britain?
But Tolkein... The Master himself.... Ah yes... reading that is liquid, pure
and wondrous all at the same time.
Love
Michael
>
Lurk
Rich wrote:
>
>
> Lurk wrote:
>
>>
>> TD (GEOFF) wrote:
>>
>> > What folks should know are the basic practices of ECKANKAR.
>>
>>
>> Geoff, you asked me to comment on these points. I think you wanted to
>> know what trouble I had with them, if any.
Rich I unsnipped what you snipped so I can have the original context in
which I made my comment to respond to your comments.
>>
>> > > THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
>> >
>> > 1. Self-discipline.
>>
>>
>> No problem with self discipline if such discipline arises naturally out
>> of the process of a person deciding for themselve <unsnipped portion>
not some idealized spiritual carrot their chasing because it was dangle
before them by some authority figure who claims to hold the highest
consciousness IN THE WORLD.
>
> Well good, you agree with this 'fundamental' even though you focus on
> ways<SNIPPED> that it can fail.
The question was about this notion of self discipline in eckankar.
Naturally I will make a comment about how I see it applied in eckankar.
I think Harold and Paul both set up idealistic expectations for the
students, give them mediocre tools to accomplish these expectations and
beat their chest about self discipline. In that context and application
of self discipline, the notion of self discipline is not productive.
>
>
>> > 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
>>
>>
>> Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit.<unsnipped portions>
In eckankar, the term mahanta gets conflated into two meanings: mahanta
referring
to Harold and, mahanta referring to a state of consciousness. And then
when you
throw into the mix that conjuring up of Harold's form, then I think you
have a mess.
So I like the ideas of relying spirit and feel eckankar's semantic
scheme lends itself
to misinterpretation and abuse.
I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in touch with
their own
spiritual nature by using a master's form. Seems counterproductive to me
and facilitates dependency instead of SELF reliance.
>
>
>
> Great, you agree with this 'fundamental' too, even though you focus on
> ways<SNIPPED> that it can be misapplied.
Again, we're talking about this principle in eckankar so I see how the
eck masters have misapplied it.
>
>
>> > 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
>>
>>
>> It is great to do spiritual exercises, <unsnipped portion> but I'm
not fond
of the hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds these exercises in eckankar.
Many of
the spiritual exercises I'm familiar with were subject to self delusion.
>
>
>
> OK... you agree with this 'fundamental' even though you focus on
> ways<SNIPPED> that it can be misconstrued.
Again, Rich we are talking about eckankar and the way Harold presents
these spiritual exercises as the ultimate salvation for eckists I think
is overrated and is constricted to self delusion, fantasy, wishful
thinking instead of doing real work.
Lurk
Lurk
TD (GEOFF) wrote:
> Lurk. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
>
> Ok then, Geoff
> ------------------
> Lurk wrote:
>
>
>>TD (GEOFF) wrote:
>>
>> > What folks should know are the basic practices of ECKANKAR.
>>
>>Geoff, you asked me to comment on these points. I think you wanted to
>>know what trouble I had with them, if any.
>>
>> >
>> > THE FOUR FUNDAMENTALS OF ECK
>> >
>> > 1. Self-discipline.
>>
>>No problem with self discipline if such discipline arises naturally out
>>of the process of a person deciding for themselves and not some
>>idealized spiritual carrot their chasing because it was dangle before
>>them by some authority figure who claims to hold the highest
>>consciousness IN THE WORLD.
>>
>>
>
> So, I will capture a point of agreement in our growing list: Self
discipline is
> good if such discipline arises naturally out of a person deciding for
themselves
> (i.e. stress the "self" in self discipline).
It depends on the disposition of the student as well. If a student is
suffering from being a super responsible, type A personality, who abuse
themselves with accomplishment, then hearing the message of self
discipline from the highest consciousness in the world could serve to
feed this person's abuse of themselves.
>
> Of course, I'd agree with you on the next clause if I thought it
really added
> anything not obvious. Of course you know where we will have to agree to
> disagree. Keep trollling... ;-)
Can't separate a precept from the context in which it is use...try as
you might. It is a serious point to consider: Is a person motivated to
have the self discipline to act out of compassion for themselves or
because some authority figure says so or some inner tyrant says so. You
can dismiss it as trolling all you want, but I mean them to be serious
and wish you would take them seriously.
>
>
>> > 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
>>
>>Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit. In eckankar, the
>>term mahanta gets conflated into two meanings: mahanta referring to
>>Harold and, mahanta referring to a state of consciousness. And then when
>>you throw into the mix that conjuring up of Harold's form, then I think
>>you have a mess. So I like the ideas of relying spirit and feel
>>eckankar's semantic scheme lends itself to misinterpretation and abuse.
>>
>>
>
> Agreement point: Inner reliance on ones spirit (can I say "higher
self"?) is
> good.
Yes reliance on one's spirit, which is different than inner reliance on
a mahanta, thus why I qualified the statement in the first place.
>
>
>>I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in touch with
>>their own spiritual nature by using a master's form. Seems
>>counterproductive to me and facilitates dependency instead of SELF
reliance.
>>
>>
>
> In my mind, it is just different styles of psyche. Some folks cannot
yet accept
> that it is actually "them" (I am That, and all that),
And positing a mental lucky charm to conjure up belief power and energy
help people accept that it is them.
To me that is like saying the it is good to drink beer to learn how
to accept how friendly one really is when their inhibitions are
suspended...temporarily.
or maybe it is better to
> say, that we are all the One (as in God, or whatver). In any event,
at this
> stage in unfoldment, folks would rather receive their inner guidance
from a wise
> old man, someone they respect, etc.
You think. Some might want the truth and not all the trickery.
>
> Not sure you agree with this, but I would fall back on our previous
discussion
> where it seemed we agreed that the message is the important thing to
judge, and
> not the form that it takes. My take on this fundamental (actually
misnumbered
> below), is that it captures the essence of surrender and doing things
> unconditionally, letting the future take care of itself.
>
>
>> > 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
>>
>>It is great to do spiritual exercises, but I'm not fond of the
>>hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds these exercises in eckankar. Many of
>>the spiritual exercises I'm familiar with were subject to self delusion.
>>
>>
>
> Agreement point: It is great to do spiritual exercises.
No, it depends. It depends on the context and the people involved and
the particular exercises. If and eckist is a self improvement addict
(which I observed many eckists are), then the last thing they need is to
do spiritual exercises. That is feeding their compulsion....the very act
of which is affirming the underlying self hatred that says they need to
be redeemed by doing some spiritual exercise.
Sorry these agreement points can't be as neat and tidy as your trying to
make them out to be. To disregard context is a step back for me, in my
opinion.
>
> By self delusional exercises, do you mean those that simply take one in
> imagination to a place suggested by the crafter of the exercise and
that is the
> criteria for success?
I'm saying the spiritual exercises are subject to a person's self
deception and delusions without guidance.
>
> I am almost willing to agree with this, in that I prefer those
experiences where
> I get some interesting insight that I can bring back, or where the
Sound and
> Light are so strong that I can just bask and relax, simply bringing
back a sense
> of recharged batteries. If I do get a strong sense of "where" I am
in terms of
> the various God Worlds, etc., I apply the Law of Silence. It is nobodies
> business but mine and the inner Master's.
>
>
>> > 4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
>>
>>(When they use the word eck here does it mean spirit or eckankar?)
>>
>>
>
> I use ECK to mean Holy Spirit.
But this is a precept an eck master wrote. To me it means true
contemplation of the books, discourses tapes of eckankar.
So for me this means, as I say below,
> contemplation on how the Holy Spirit works in my daily life, opening
my heart
> with gratitude.
I have never taken that "works of eck" to mean "works of spirit" nor
have any of the discussion I've been in with eckists. Works refers to a
body of knowledge, texts, tapes and such.
>
>
>>True according to whom? This is a precept authorities like to throw in
>>for good measure so they can always blame the spiritual student for any
>>and all failures.
>>
>>
>
> For me it means that the feeling of an open heart rings true. In
other words,
> the flow of gratitude and an opening heart, mean that I am not just
mentally
> saying "I am thankful for this, that or the other thing."
Under the interpretation that the phrase was referring to books and
discourses, the true contemplation is according to Harold. He decides
what is and it not the official interpolations of the eck works. So true
contemplation of the eck works means to interpret them the way Harold
would interpret them, eh? Anything different than his is not true.
>
> My kids are an example of a blessing that almost always cause me to
open my
> heart. All I have to do is think of the experience of watching my
first son
> being born. As he took his first breath, I could almost see Soul
come into the
> body as he changed from a waxy yellow to a living pink. For some
reason, that
> image fills me with a sense of wonder and awe and inspiration.
>
>
>>Anything can be explained by saying the student did not truly
>>contemplate the works of eck.
>>
>>
>
> I suspect that we could agree on the following: True contemplation on the
> blessings that Holy Spirit has bestowed upon you is a good practice.
Telling student to truly contemplate the eck books and discourses is
just another meaningless expectation an eck masters announces to his
students.
>
> Thanks again....
Sure.
Lurk
TD (GEOFF)
Lurk wrote:
I agree, although I would generalize it by saying: then hearing the message...
from an authority figure in that persons life...
>
> >
> > Of course, I'd agree with you on the next clause if I thought it
> really added
> > anything not obvious. Of course you know where we will have to agree to
> > disagree. Keep trollling... ;-)
> Can't separate a precept from the context in which it is use...try as
> you might. It is a serious point to consider: Is a person motivated to
> have the self discipline to act out of compassion for themselves or
> because some authority figure says so or some inner tyrant says so. You
> can dismiss it as trolling all you want, but I mean them to be serious
> and wish you would take them seriously.
>
Well, all I am trying to do by generalizing these statements is to make them
appeal to a general audience that iincludes ECKists. Your last rewrite gets
much closer. I wish you would separate your messages, is what I am basically
saying. All ECKists here *know* you think Harold is bad by setting himself up
as the Mahanta consciousness. You add this clause wherever possible, which is
why I have to put it in the con
By separating the messages you don't muddy the water. Folks get to decide on
the general truth in the statement that self discipline is only good if it truly
emanates from the Self, and not from some inner or outer authority figure.
Later (and only once), they get to decide whether Harold is a legimate authority
figure.
In short: divide and conquer...
Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
>
> >
> >
> >> > 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
> >>
> >>Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit. In eckankar, the
> >>term mahanta gets conflated into two meanings: mahanta referring to
> >>Harold and, mahanta referring to a state of consciousness. And then when
> >>you throw into the mix that conjuring up of Harold's form, then I think
> >>you have a mess. So I like the ideas of relying spirit and feel
> >>eckankar's semantic scheme lends itself to misinterpretation and abuse.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Agreement point: Inner reliance on ones spirit (can I say "higher
> self"?) is
> > good.
>
> Yes reliance on one's spirit, which is different than inner reliance on
> a mahanta, thus why I qualified the statement in the first place.
>
Great. We agree on one's Inner Spirit as a more general principle. We can
argue later whether it is OK if I use Mahanta as a term for my Inner Spirit
(knowing it is me and not some outside authority figure setting himself up as
the highest consciousness in the world<g>).
>
> >
> >
> >>I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in touch with
> >>their own spiritual nature by using a master's form. Seems
> >>counterproductive to me and facilitates dependency instead of SELF
> reliance.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > In my mind, it is just different styles of psyche. Some folks cannot
> yet accept
> > that it is actually "them" (I am That, and all that),
>
> And positing a mental lucky charm to conjure up belief power and energy
> help people accept that it is them.
>
> To me that is like saying the it is good to drink beer to learn how
> to accept how friendly one really is when their inhibitions are
> suspended...temporarily.
>
I agree with you that I don't need it for me, but I think it is good to take the
inner guidance in whatever form it appears. Here is my basic point: if the
Lucky Charms Rabbit appeared in my inner vision and gave me an idea on how to
get past this or that problem (which maybe it kind of did, given your
inspiration above), and it rung true enough, then I might try it to see what
happens. I would also adhere to the Law of Silence and not admit that as a way
of justifying my actions. Just to be clear: I get kind of squeamish when folks
tell me that their inner guide told them to do something. That is not taking
self responsibility. Sometimes I chide them about it, and sometimes don't.
>
> or maybe it is better to
> > say, that we are all the One (as in God, or whatver). In any event,
> at this
> > stage in unfoldment, folks would rather receive their inner guidance
> from a wise
> > old man, someone they respect, etc.
>
> You think. Some might want the truth and not all the trickery.
>
Not me, *they* think. I am not sure where *I* come into it. I hope you don't
think I am saying that if they don't get it in
external-form-that-appears-inwardly, then it is not valid. If they want the
truth without the conditions, maybe like you and I, they just tap into the
"source" or whatever *they* want to call it. My point, to state it again, is
that folks should be free to get their guidance in any form they want.
As I said above, I'd prefer that they keep their sources private, and just take
responsibility for their own decisions.
>
> >
> > Not sure you agree with this, but I would fall back on our previous
> discussion
> > where it seemed we agreed that the message is the important thing to
> judge, and
> > not the form that it takes. My take on this fundamental (actually
> misnumbered
> > below), is that it captures the essence of surrender and doing things
> > unconditionally, letting the future take care of itself.
> >
> >
> >> > 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
> >>
> >>It is great to do spiritual exercises, but I'm not fond of the
> >>hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds these exercises in eckankar. Many of
> >>the spiritual exercises I'm familiar with were subject to self delusion.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Agreement point: It is great to do spiritual exercises.
>
> No, it depends. It depends on the context and the people involved and
> the particular exercises. If and eckist is a self improvement addict
> (which I observed many eckists are), then the last thing they need is to
> do spiritual exercises. That is feeding their compulsion....the very act
> of which is affirming the underlying self hatred that says they need to
> be redeemed by doing some spiritual exercise.
>
What about an exercise to help them lighten up?
>
> Sorry these agreement points can't be as neat and tidy as your trying to
> make them out to be. To disregard context is a step back for me, in my
> opinion.
>
Well, I understand and agree that there can be other rules to think about once
one has mastered the basics. That to me is why you can't just throw these
fundamentals out there and say: well, now you don't need a spiritual path (in
general mind you). Otherwise, I could just hand out my four fundamentals card
and dispense with the outer path altogether... (maybe *that* is an idea I can
get you to agree with).
That said, it *is* important to start with the basics: my old professor used to
say "simple steps for simple feet" (I don't know where he got it from, he never
said). And another important thing: whatever extra rules and principles that
get tossed out should build off of these, or there should be a good reason. The
law of parsimony applies.
>
> >
> > By self delusional exercises, do you mean those that simply take one in
> > imagination to a place suggested by the crafter of the exercise and
> that is the
> > criteria for success?
>
> I'm saying the spiritual exercises are subject to a person's self
> deception and delusions without guidance.
>
So are you saying that for someone to progress spiritually, they *must* have a
guide?
>
> >
> > I am almost willing to agree with this, in that I prefer those
> experiences where
> > I get some interesting insight that I can bring back, or where the
> Sound and
> > Light are so strong that I can just bask and relax, simply bringing
> back a sense
> > of recharged batteries. If I do get a strong sense of "where" I am
> in terms of
> > the various God Worlds, etc., I apply the Law of Silence. It is nobodies
> > business but mine and the inner Master's.
> >
> >
> >> > 4. True contemplation of the works of ECK.
> >>
> >>(When they use the word eck here does it mean spirit or eckankar?)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I use ECK to mean Holy Spirit.
>
> But this is a precept an eck master wrote. To me it means true
> contemplation of the books, discourses tapes of eckankar.
>
Not to me, as I say below.
>
> So for me this means, as I say below,
> > contemplation on how the Holy Spirit works in my daily life, opening
> my heart
> > with gratitude.
>
> I have never taken that "works of eck" to mean "works of spirit" nor
> have any of the discussion I've been in with eckists. Works refers to a
> body of knowledge, texts, tapes and such.
>
I have. I even did a class for youth based on my four interpretations. Approved
by the RESA. No one has kicked me out yet... Also, by their "works" you will
know them. How the ECK "works"... The "workings" of ECK, etc.
I am not afraid to experiment, and I am truly if others did not feel the same
freedom.
On the other hand, I do not feel obligated to make an issue out of my
interpretation either, I am just trying to move forward in my own way at my own
pace...
>
> >
> >
> >>True according to whom? This is a precept authorities like to throw in
> >>for good measure so they can always blame the spiritual student for any
> >>and all failures.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > For me it means that the feeling of an open heart rings true. In
> other words,
> > the flow of gratitude and an opening heart, mean that I am not just
> mentally
> > saying "I am thankful for this, that or the other thing."
>
> Under the interpretation that the phrase was referring to books and
> discourses, the true contemplation is according to Harold. He decides
> what is and it not the official interpolations of the eck works. So true
> contemplation of the eck works means to interpret them the way Harold
> would interpret them, eh? Anything different than his is not true.
>
Sorry. I don't see it that way, but I do see that if you felt that way about
the fundamental, that you were right to leave.
>
> >
> > My kids are an example of a blessing that almost always cause me to
> open my
> > heart. All I have to do is think of the experience of watching my
> first son
> > being born. As he took his first breath, I could almost see Soul
> come into the
> > body as he changed from a waxy yellow to a living pink. For some
> reason, that
> > image fills me with a sense of wonder and awe and inspiration.
> >
> >
> >>Anything can be explained by saying the student did not truly
> >>contemplate the works of eck.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I suspect that we could agree on the following: True contemplation on the
> > blessings that Holy Spirit has bestowed upon you is a good practice.
>
> Telling student to truly contemplate the eck books and discourses is
> just another meaningless expectation an eck masters announces to his
> students.
>
You did not address this statement trying for an agreement on an interpretation,
but just restated yours again. Should I assume that you agree that mine is
good, *and* are saying that your interpretation is *bad*. That would be
progress.
Ok then, Geoff
Lurk
TD (GEOFF) wrote:
Why generalize it since we're talking about eckankar? Makes no sense to me.
>
>
>> >
>> > Of course, I'd agree with you on the next clause if I thought it
>>really added
>> > anything not obvious. Of course you know where we will have to
agree to
>> > disagree. Keep trollling... ;-)
>>
>
>>Can't separate a precept from the context in which it is use...try as
>>you might. It is a serious point to consider: Is a person motivated to
>>have the self discipline to act out of compassion for themselves or
>>because some authority figure says so or some inner tyrant says so. You
>>can dismiss it as trolling all you want, but I mean them to be serious
>>and wish you would take them seriously.
>>
>>
>
> Well, all I am trying to do by generalizing these statements is to
make them
> appeal to a general audience that iincludes ECKists.
Why, we're discussing precepts of eckankar?
Your last rewrite gets
> much closer. I wish you would separate your messages, is what I am
basically
> saying. All ECKists here *know* you think Harold is bad by setting
himself up
> as the Mahanta consciousness. You add this clause wherever
possible, which is
> why I have to put it in the con
>
> By separating the messages you don't muddy the water. Folks get to
decide on
> the general truth in the statement that self discipline is only good
if it truly
> emanates from the Self, and not from some inner or outer authority
figure.
> Later (and only once), they get to decide whether Harold is a
legimate authority
> figure.
I don't know about you Geoff, but I'm here to talk about eckankar.
Harold is the leader of eckankar and serves as the context of where the
precept is coming from and is pertinent to the conversation.
>
> In short: divide and conquer...
>
> Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
You're missing or forgetting that you posted four fundamentals of eck
and asked me to comment on them. I did and mention Harold's high
consciousness which was pertinent to the point and you accuse me of
trolling. I objected to such name calling and reiterated the point, and
now you're saying that I should appeal to a general audience.
Am I missing something?
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > 2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta.
>> >>
>> >>Nothing wrong with inner reliance of one's spirit. In eckankar, the
>> >>term mahanta gets conflated into two meanings: mahanta referring to
>> >>Harold and, mahanta referring to a state of consciousness. And
then when
>> >>you throw into the mix that conjuring up of Harold's form, then I
think
>> >>you have a mess. So I like the ideas of relying spirit and feel
>> >>eckankar's semantic scheme lends itself to misinterpretation and
abuse.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Agreement point: Inner reliance on ones spirit (can I say "higher
>>self"?) is
>> > good.
>>
>>Yes reliance on one's spirit, which is different than inner reliance on
>>a mahanta, thus why I qualified the statement in the first place.
>>
>>
>
> Great. We agree on one's Inner Spirit as a more general principle.
We can
> argue later whether it is OK if I use Mahanta as a term for my Inner
Spirit
> (knowing it is me and not some outside authority figure setting
himself up as
> the highest consciousness in the world<g>).
You can use whatever term you want for your inner spirit but that does
not change the fact that Paul and Harold conflated the meanings and used
them in a confusing manner throughout the eckankar texts. Thus, inner
reliance on the mahanta can lead to emotional dependency.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >>I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in
touch with
>> >>their own spiritual nature by using a master's form. Seems
>> >>counterproductive to me and facilitates dependency instead of SELF
>>reliance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > In my mind, it is just different styles of psyche. Some folks cannot
>>yet accept
>> > that it is actually "them" (I am That, and all that),
>>
>>And positing a mental lucky charm to conjure up belief power and energy
>>help people accept that it is them.
>>
>>To me that is like saying the it is good to drink beer to learn how
>>to accept how friendly one really is when their inhibitions are
>>suspended...temporarily.
>>
>>
>
> I agree with you that I don't need it for me, but I think it is good
to take the
> inner guidance in whatever form it appears.
In eckankar eckists are told what form it will appear.
Here is my basic point: if the
> Lucky Charms Rabbit appeared in my inner vision and gave me an idea
on how to
> get past this or that problem (which maybe it kind of did, given your
> inspiration above), and it rung true enough, then I might try it to
see what
> happens. I would also adhere to the Law of Silence and not admit
that as a way
> of justifying my actions. Just to be clear: I get kind of squeamish
when folks
> tell me that their inner guide told them to do something. That is
not taking
> self responsibility. Sometimes I chide them about it, and sometimes
don't.
>
The assumption is made in eckankar that conjuring up a rendition of
Harold on the inner is a viable process whereby a person eventually
comes to know and rely on their own spirit. I'm saying that is deeply
flawed progression.
>
>>or maybe it is better to
>> > say, that we are all the One (as in God, or whatver). In any event,
>>at this
>> > stage in unfoldment, folks would rather receive their inner guidance
>>from a wise
>> > old man, someone they respect, etc.
>>
>>You think. Some might want the truth and not all the trickery.
>>
>>
>
> Not me, *they* think. I am not sure where *I* come into it. I hope
you don't
> think I am saying that if they don't get it in
> external-form-that-appears-inwardly, then it is not valid. If they
want the
> truth without the conditions, maybe like you and I, they just tap
into the
> "source" or whatever *they* want to call it. My point, to state it
again, is
> that folks should be free to get their guidance in any form they want.
>
> As I said above, I'd prefer that they keep their sources private,
and just take
> responsibility for their own decisions.
And I'm saying the reliance on the inner mahanta which eckankar
instructs students takes the form of Harold, creates more dependency
than it does someone using that as a springboard to discover their own
spiritual power. I don't think it is psychologically sound.
>
>
>> >
>> > Not sure you agree with this, but I would fall back on our previous
>>discussion
>> > where it seemed we agreed that the message is the important thing to
>>judge, and
>> > not the form that it takes. My take on this fundamental (actually
>>misnumbered
>> > below), is that it captures the essence of surrender and doing things
>> > unconditionally, letting the future take care of itself.
>> >
>> >
>> >> > 3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK.
>> >>
>> >>It is great to do spiritual exercises, but I'm not fond of the
>> >>hyperbolic rhetoric that surrounds these exercises in eckankar.
Many of
>> >>the spiritual exercises I'm familiar with were subject to self
delusion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Agreement point: It is great to do spiritual exercises.
>>
>>No, it depends. It depends on the context and the people involved and
>>the particular exercises. If and eckist is a self improvement addict
>>(which I observed many eckists are), then the last thing they need is to
>>do spiritual exercises. That is feeding their compulsion....the very act
>>of which is affirming the underlying self hatred that says they need to
>>be redeemed by doing some spiritual exercise.
>>
>>
>
> What about an exercise to help them lighten up?
Self improvement addicts don't know their addicted. Does giving an
person addicted to beer a higher priced beer get rid of their addiction?
>
>
>>Sorry these agreement points can't be as neat and tidy as your trying to
>>make them out to be. To disregard context is a step back for me, in my
>>opinion.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I understand and agree that there can be other rules to think
about once
> one has mastered the basics.
Huh? Do you really know what I mean by understanding things in context?
It doesn't matter whether the information is basic or advanced,
contextual information is always present and needs to be considered.
You posted the four fundamentals of eck and I commented on them in the
context of eckankar. For some damn reason you want to strip my comments
from the context in which I make them. I find this very strange.
That to me is why you can't just throw these
> fundamentals out there and say: well, now you don't need a spiritual
path (in
> general mind you). Otherwise, I could just hand out my four
fundamentals card
> and dispense with the outer path altogether... (maybe *that* is an
idea I can
> get you to agree with).
You're making the case for a in the flesh teacher and not the imaginary one.
>
> That said, it *is* important to start with the basics: my old
professor used to
> say "simple steps for simple feet" (I don't know where he got it
from, he never
> said). And another important thing: whatever extra rules and
principles that
> get tossed out should build off of these, or there should be a good
reason. The
> law of parsimony applies.
>
>
>> >
>> > By self delusional exercises, do you mean those that simply take
one in
>> > imagination to a place suggested by the crafter of the exercise and
>>that is the
>> > criteria for success?
>>
>>I'm saying the spiritual exercises are subject to a person's self
>>deception and delusions without guidance.
>>
>>
>
> So are you saying that for someone to progress spiritually, they
*must* have a
> guide?
No, it is a matter of do you want to discover it on your own (and make
Harji proud) after struggling for many years, or do you want to get a in
the flesh teacher who can give you real feedback and cut the learning
curve by 95%.
What does my leaving have to do with anything? So tell me, are you
saying that there is someone other than Harold that can interpret the
eckankar doctrines and have it be official eckankar doctrine? If so,
point me to an example and its widespread use.
>
>
>> >
>> > My kids are an example of a blessing that almost always cause me to
>>open my
>> > heart. All I have to do is think of the experience of watching my
>>first son
>> > being born. As he took his first breath, I could almost see Soul
>>come into the
>> > body as he changed from a waxy yellow to a living pink. For some
>>reason, that
>> > image fills me with a sense of wonder and awe and inspiration.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Anything can be explained by saying the student did not truly
>> >>contemplate the works of eck.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I suspect that we could agree on the following: True contemplation
on the
>> > blessings that Holy Spirit has bestowed upon you is a good practice.
>>
>>Telling student to truly contemplate the eck books and discourses is
>>just another meaningless expectation an eck masters announces to his
>>students.
>>
>>
>
> You did not address this statement trying for an agreement on an
interpretation,
> but just restated yours again.
That's because I already stated that I did not agree with your
assessment of the "works" of eck meaning works of spirit instead of
books tapes and such. Why should I agree with one of your "agreement"
restatements.
Should I assume that you agree that mine is
> good, *and* are saying that your interpretation is *bad*. That would be
> progress.
We'll just agree to disagree.
Lurk
Anne
> You can use whatever term you want for your inner spirit but that does
> not change the fact that Paul and Harold conflated the meanings and used
> them in a confusing manner throughout the eckankar texts. Thus, inner
> reliance on the mahanta can lead to emotional dependency.
Is your concern about the emotional dependency
only in the fact that some will choose to make the
inner master responsible for their personal
shortcomings, lessons, issues, problems,
obstacles, etc. and reluctance to deal with them,
or are there others?
( And good luck to those poor Souls, lol. I agree
it can feel like a very dirty trick, but for some
there may not be another way to learn it, imo.
This path will take the emotionally dependent on
quite a ride, but I am not seeing harm in that,
not in the long run. For me, it has been healing.)
> >> >>I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in
> touch with
> >> >>their own spiritual nature by using a master's form.
It helps to focus the mind, in my opinion and in
my own s.e.'s I have used all kinds of images. It
was the image of an ancient Celtic deity that
brought me to Eckankar. She was focused on the
path of love over the psychic, which I had
mistaken for the truly spiritual. Now, I don't
use much image at all. Just talk between what I
see as my higher self and lower/little self. But
I didn't start that way at all.
I have gone through many, many stages of inner
realization, a constant flow of unfolding
understandings. No part of my inner life is
static or unchanging, except my oneness with
divine spirit, everything else is subject to shift.
I don't think it matters where one starts or what
image they use, one is as good as another IF and
this is a big IF--they understand that the ECK,
the spirit of the DIVINE is what is behind the
image. For some, they need time and experience
just to know what that is and focusing on the
image of an inner master may just be useful, but
certainly not the goal.
My husband has literally worked with a dancing
bear (in top hat and cane) in his dreams. He
thinks it was an inner humorous hint that the form
of the messenger has little to do with the
message. I think the ECK masters are trying to
promote a feeling of safety in dealing with inner
stuff for those who have fears about the other
planes and possible genuine dangers. And of
course, this being a world of paradox, there is
the down side you bring up, dependency. But, for
me, the downside is not fatal, painful part of
growing up, but not deadly. In fact nothing is
fatal in the face of eternity from the view of
Soul I favor.
Huuuuuuu,
Anne
p.s. Sorry for only answering bits and pieces, but
it seems to me some of this stuff has a depth
being overlooked in the shear length of the posts,
making it impossible to look at the problems in a
more satisfying manner.... I can't speak for
anyone else but I need smaller bites.
Thanks.
Rich
Anne wrote:
> Lurk wrote:
>> >> >>I never really understood the wisdom of helping people get in
>> touch with
>> >> >>their own spiritual nature by using a master's form.
>
>
>
> It helps to focus the mind, in my opinion and in my own s.e.'s I have
> used all kinds of images. It was the image of an ancient Celtic deity
> that brought me to Eckankar. She was focused on the path of love over
> the psychic, which I had mistaken for the truly spiritual. Now, I don't
> use much image at all. Just talk between what I see as my higher self
> and lower/little self. But I didn't start that way at all.
>
> I have gone through many, many stages of inner realization, a constant
> flow of unfolding understandings. No part of my inner life is static or
> unchanging, except my oneness with divine spirit, everything else is
> subject to shift.
>
> I don't think it matters where one starts or what image they use, one is
> as good as another IF and this is a big IF--they understand that the
> ECK, the spirit of the DIVINE is what is behind the image. For some,
> they need time and experience just to know what that is and focusing on
> the image of an inner master may just be useful, but certainly not the
> goal.
Good points Anne. I think that's what many Eckists experience.
I see that the problem with the apostates POV is that they are not
changing, unfolding, shifting, but only criticizing one image from
the writings, that they hold tightly to. It seems to me that
holding on to any specific thing in the written works leads to a
dead end... hence the dead horses that keep being dragged into this NG.
Anne
Well, I don't really know what goes on in the rest
of anyone's life on this ng, but what they choose
to share. Here, the ex-Eckists have a message, as
do I, so it's hard for me to tell. I see this
more as service work, so I don't personalize it so
much anymore. :-) It makes it much easier to
stay clear and be a stronger channel. I get hurt
and less offended too, lol, I like that.
Huuuuu,
Anne
Sam
Anne wrote in message <3C6C22DD...@earthlink.net>...
Hi Anne:
That's how I like it too. Scrambled. Universal. That way it's hard to tell
if I'm coming or going, am being serious or humourous, fictional or
nonfictional. The scrambling effect unscrambles the MAIN THING.
The Main Thing is to Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing.
But why do I post here? Usenet addiction, I suppose, that is, if 10 to 20.7
minutes a day constitutes addiction. But one of these days I'm gonna start
practicing the principle of Self Discipline, and I will post no more....
Cheers
Sam
Anne
<GGG>, I think what constitutes is addiction is
not so much time spent, but the intensity of the
attachment, the real lust for the behavior. It's
pretty intensely, attached and lusty on a.r.e.,
lol, but I'm from a semi-tropical climate, all
this heat and steam reminds me of home, lol, in
more ways than one....
But one of these days I'm gonna start
> practicing the principle of Self Discipline, and I will post no more....
Too bad, I'll miss the view from Sam...<G>.
Huuuuuuuuuuu,
Anne
HU 4 God
all areas of life.
#2. Absolute inner reliance on the Mahanta = rely on the highest
consciousness of the Self. The Mahanta is within everyone whether one
recognizes It as the Christ consciousness, God consciousness, Self
consciousness, whatever name you give it.
#3. The Spiritual Exercises of ECK [Spirit] = contemplate on the
spiritual aspect of one's life. Love God, Spirit, self, family,
friends, all life. With the spiritual exercises, one brings more of
Spirit into one's life daily.
#4. True contemplation of the works of ECK = together with #3, one truly
studies the works of Spirit.
--
In Spirit,
Jackie
@->->--
"TD (GEOFF)" <tdj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C657AAF...@hotmail.com...
Sam
Anne wrote in message <3C6C2F32...@earthlink.net>...
See, Anne, that's why I have such a hard time leaving A.R.E.. Everytime I
mention Pulling a Sam, someone says he or she will miss me. I just can't
find it within my heart to let people down. What a fellow to do?
Cheers
Sam
Rich
Anne wrote:
> Well, I don't really know what goes on in the rest of anyone's life on
> this ng, but what they choose to share. Here, the ex-Eckists have a
> message, as do I, so it's hard for me to tell. I see this more as
> service work, so I don't personalize it so much anymore. :-) It makes
> it much easier to stay clear and be a stronger channel.
Excellent choice. It's easy to get sucked down into the whirlpool
of detractor attack/counter attack.
> I get hurt and
> less offended too, lol, I like that.
Makes sense a lot more that some who stick there chin out daring to
be hit.<G>
Rich
Sam wrote:
> See, Anne, that's why I have such a hard time leaving A.R.E.. Everytime I
> mention Pulling a Sam, someone says he or she will miss me. I just can't
> find it within my heart to let people down. What a fellow to do?
Stay? <G>
We love you Sam.
Strawberry Fields
"Sam" <S...@NoFool.or.g> wrote in message
news:Rr0b8.1302$Cl2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
LOL Aah shucks Sam, we all have our crosses to bear, just do your best not
get nailed to it! <g>
Cheer up Sam, when you're chewing on life's grissle, doooooon't gruwmble,
give a whistle, and everything will work out for the best
.......................
Cheers Sean
>
>
>
Anne
>
>
> Sam wrote:
>
>
>> See, Anne, that's why I have such a hard time leaving A.R.E.. Everytime I
>> mention Pulling a Sam, someone says he or she will miss me. I just can't
>> find it within my heart to let people down. What a fellow to do?
>
>
>
>
> Stay? <G>
>
> We love you Sam.
Lookie there Sam, I think this is why you stay.
You are a prisoner of Love...<VBG>, and there's so
much of it here. Even in this arena of team sport
insult & inuedno, it's still trucking right along!
Unstoppable. Stuff'll grow anywhere, under any
conditions. It's a holy weed...lol.
Love and hugs,
Anne
Anne
>
>
> Anne wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I don't really know what goes on in the rest of anyone's life on
>> this ng, but what they choose to share. Here, the ex-Eckists have a
>> message, as do I, so it's hard for me to tell. I see this more as
>> service work, so I don't personalize it so much anymore. :-) It
>> makes it much easier to stay clear and be a stronger channel.
>
>
>
> Excellent choice. It's easy to get sucked down into the whirlpool of
> detractor attack/counter attack.
Lol, Rich, we all been there, done that, got so
many t-shirts, it's hard not to want to give them
all away. But they make a lovely glow when thrown
into the fires of ECK.
>
>
>> I get hurt and less offended too, lol, I like that.
>
>
>
> Makes sense a lot more that some who stick there chin out daring to be
> hit.<G>
LOL...I always resort to humor when the going gets
rough, it's the music of the ECK, sent to soothe
our hearts, have a laugh at ourselves and our
antics and remind us that none of this is real,
and it's just a schoolyard, and all is well.
Never hurts to have lots of reminders, though, I
LOVE reminders when I'm feeling defeated or tired
or stupid, or lonely, or well... you get my drift.
<VBG>.
LOts of love,
Anne
Rich
Anne wrote:
> Lookie there Sam, I think this is why you stay.
> You are a prisoner of Love...<VBG>, and there's so much of it here.
> Even in this arena of team sport insult & inuedno, it's still trucking
> right along! Unstoppable. Stuff'll grow anywhere, under any
> conditions. It's a holy weed...lol.
"Love is like a slow, consuming fire which starts in the
center of man's heart and slowly moves outward, destroying
all in its path. Nothing can stop love, and even when it is
quenched, it will break out somewhere else."
Stranger by the River - Paul Twitchell
Sam
Rich <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message <3C6DAD8E...@aloha.net>...
>
>
>Anne wrote:
>
>
>> Lookie there Sam, I think this is why you stay.
>> You are a prisoner of Love...<VBG>, and there's so much of it here.
>> Even in this arena of team sport insult & inuedno, it's still trucking
>> right along! Unstoppable. Stuff'll grow anywhere, under any
>> conditions. It's a holy weed...lol.
>
>
>
>"Love is like a slow, consuming fire which starts in the
>center of man's heart and slowly moves outward, destroying
>all in its path. Nothing can stop love, and even when it is
>quenched, it will break out somewhere else."
>
> Stranger by the River - Paul Twitchell
>
I've always loved that quote. Second only to "The only thing worth
considering is a state of consciousness" this one rules. I shared the quote
with my poet friend once, who is one of the most loving, decent human beings
I know, and he was bothered by the word "destroy", preferring the word be
changed to "changes." Love changes all in its path. But "destroy" also
works for me.
Sometimes I'd like to take a sledgehammer to A.R.E., and destroy destroy
destroy! Just kidding. Somehow it all works out, for me at least.
Cheers
Sam
HU 4 God
I agree with your friend, the word "change" has a more positive
connotation then the word "destroy". Let's destroy our image of those
negative connotations and change it into a "path" of love. ;-)
BTW, if you take your sledgehammer to a.r.e., you'll destroy your
computer, literally. ;-D
Sam
HU 4 God wrote in message ...
one...I'm due for an upgrade anyway, although what I have now serves me just
fine...I'm not quick to latch onto the latest toys...if it serves my needs,
I'm happy.
About "love & destruction": One thing I've learned about word usuage is that
words and their true meaning are often misconstrued and misunderstood.
A.R.E., has been a good lesson for me in that regard. Despite that, my most
basic attitude has not changed that terribly much.
Cheers
Sam
Rich
Sam wrote:
> Rich <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message <3C6DAD8E...@aloha.net>...
>>"Love is like a slow, consuming fire which starts in the
>>center of man's heart and slowly moves outward, destroying
>>all in its path. Nothing can stop love, and even when it is
>>quenched, it will break out somewhere else."
>>
>> Stranger by the River - Paul Twitchell
>>
>>
>
> I've always loved that quote. Second only to "The only thing worth
> considering is a state of consciousness" this one rules. I shared the quote
> with my poet friend once, who is one of the most loving, decent human beings
> I know, and he was bothered by the word "destroy", preferring the word be
> changed to "changes." Love changes all in its path. But "destroy" also
> works for me.
It's a strong counter point that makes the statement so poignant.
Stranger by the River is _full_ of such quotes. It's my favorite
book of Paul's.
"Love is absolute. But the conception of love varies with the
individual consciousness. No man can say when the individual
consciousness has developed to the point where further unfoldment is
impossible.
Love is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of demonstration.
It is not a question of authority, but one of perception and action.
The requirements of growth demand that you exert the greatest degree
of love for what is perfectly in accord with Soul. Our highest
happiness will be best attained through our understanding of, and
conscious cooperation with, the divine law.
It is love that imparts vitality to our minds and hearts and enables
it to germinate. The law of love will bring to you all necessary
for your spiritual growth and maturity."
Stranger by the River - Paul Twitchell
--