mythology and religion

[fife]

Does religion derive from mythology? Stories? That's one possibility. But that's still no excuse for mythomania. 😉

[fife]

Does meeting the products of Paul Twitchell's mythomania in soul travel, oobe, dreams, mean anything? It doesn't appear to.

[fife]

In Eckankar theory where each Soul is identical to the great Soul, the SUGMAD, the universe.

[fife]

In Eckankar theory each Soul is identical, has all the qualities, no greater, no lesser.

[fife]

But in Eckankar PRACTICE it squats on that, steps on that, crushes that, and assigns everyone a "place" starting at the bottom, the most retarded.

[fife]

And that crushes everyone. Permanently. In psychological terms at least. Except for the massive egoists who rise to the occasion with their massive, total, and complete, bullshit about how everything is or should be. But they're only speaking about and from the dire condition and hope that the suppression conditioning holds out so they can continue to be important.

[fife]

I don't believe in that. That's not the intention. And why everything is laid out to begin with. But it got to be so OPPRESSIVE, just walking around with that, just carrying it around, that I just had to resign and walk away. As many others have had to as well.

[fife]

There is a structure and a purpose to Eckankar's belief system and theory of Soul. And it's okay. But eckists are afraid to look at it, to believe that each and every one of them are what it tells them that each and every one of them are NOW as Soul. All of it. Not whenever. Somewhere, somehow in the never-never but certainly not now.

[fife]

What you are now? What the theory is you are now, and every Soul is now? Or not now? Which one is the total bullshit you can't work with and never makes any sense?

[fife]

Five inner worlds and fifteen planes of consciousness now? Right now? Yes or no? And don't f- yourself over it, or continue f- ing yourself over it.

No need to be angry or vengeful. All of that is just self-destructive.

Just get on with it without the contradiction. You don't have any time for the contradiction, anyway.

And you don't want to shut out everything surrounding your theory that's helpful. Like Eckankar has.

[Etznab]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:57:51 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Does religion derive from mythology? Stories? That's one possibility. But that's still no excuse for mythomania. 😉

Here are a couple different opinions about myth.

Besides quoting Max Muller I shall give a few extracts from writers on the subject whom science calls authorities.
Kant and Schiller both assert that "A myth does not represent debasement, or a sinking down from original perfection, not a victory of sensuality over reason, but on the contrary, it manifests the advancement of a man from a state of comparative rudeness to freedom and civilization."
I am not in accord with these ideas because common reasoning tells me the case should be reversed. Fully ninety-nine percent of the myths are traceable to legends. Legends are history orally handed down. History is a record of facts, so that myths instead of "manifesting advancement" manifest a retrogression; for they show that history, a part of civilization, is being forgotten. Therefore that civilization has declined.

- Col. James Churchward, Sacred Symbols Of Mu, p. 24-25

http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/index.htm#contents

[Etznab]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:56:55 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> I don't believe in that. That's not the intention. And why everything is laid out to begin with. But it got to be so OPPRESSIVE, just walking around with that, just carrying it around, that I just had to resign and walk away. As many others have had to as well.

Might it be better to think of organized religions as works of art displayed side by side at an art fair? Where each of the artists are hoping to get the most for their creations? And it depends on the observer, because what is "art" to one person is a piece of trash to another.

[fife]

Hi

I don't agree with Churchward. In my opinion myths are important. Troy never would have been discovered if one person if one person hadn't disbelieved what everyone else believed. That Troy was a myth, a mythical place in an epic poem.

And an aside on Churchward... he made up quite a bit himself to fit the idea he had.

Art and religion? Yeah, I agree with you. But if there's a claim, I expect it to be lived up to. Same as you.

[Etznab]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> There is a structure and a purpose to Eckankar's belief system and theory of Soul. And it's okay. But eckists are afraid to look at it, to believe that each and every one of them are what it tells them that each and every one of them are NOW as Soul. All of it. Not whenever. Somewhere, somehow in the never-never but certainly not now.

When Paul Twitchell's "Eckankar" creation applied to become a non-profit religion I suspect it had to conform to certain specifications and make a number of concessions. Iow the transformation into a religion changed Paul Twitchell's "Eckankar" into something he might not have agreed with. And the fact that he didn't live more than a year after the change means he wasn't around long enough to fathom the results of such a change. It was left to other people like Paul's widow (Gail) and the person (Darwin Gross) she named to be the new leader of Eckankar; and to be her new husband too! So Gail was always the wife of the Eck Master since the beginning of modern-day Eckankar until someone came along (Harold Klemp and Co.) and totally ousted her second Eck Master husband.

And then followedathe days of Harold. Or should I say, the "Age of Harold"?

It is interesting to think about this history, considering that I time had come where the founder of Eckankar was gone. His successor and the wife of them both was also (from Eckankar) gone.

Another Eckankar "structure" is that of making money from the selling of books and the charging of money for seminars and various other events; not to mention suggested yearly donations. It is called a "non-profit" religion, but all of that money is going to "profit" someone, or something. Perhaps it helps to support the "corporation sole", it's administrative functions, support staff, etc. The various Eckankar centers "profit" from the people who donate to them and (I believe) the "corporation sole" can appropriate funds of any Eckankar Center if it chooses. The majority of Eckankar members are members in name only and don't necessarily have voting rights, or the liberty to appropriate funds contrary to the wishes of the "corporation sole".

Profit can be either a noun, or a verb depending on the context. The noun form definition includes:

"profit, advance, increase, success, progress," noun use of past participle of proficere "accomplish, make progress; be useful, do good; have success, profit," from pro "forward" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward") + combining form of facere "to make, do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). ...

https://www.etymonline.com/word/profit#etymonline_v_46455

Not for profit organization includes:

"In economic terms, it is an organization that uses its surplus of the revenues to further achieve its ultimate objective, rather than distributing its income to the organization's shareholders, leaders, or members."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization

[fife]

I don't want to get into the usual subject but it isn't just lies when it comes to religions. It's the claims they make that they don't live up to. Omission is as bad as commission. The commission of a lie.

[fife]

Well, I was talking about the structure of Soul in Eckankar's theory of Soul.

Two things I expect from a religion or anything.
1. don't lie to me
2. don't make claims and not live up
to them.

I may be wrong, but I think you might agree with me about those two.

[fife]

The business didn't have anything to do with Eckankar's theory of Soul and didn't change it in any way. It's still the same as it was when it was all laid out. And that took a while, but it's still the same.

[Etznab]

I think Eckankar had to be defined a certain way in order to become a religion. One way it had to be defined was that it had to define its leader. Like who is at the head of it? Who is in charge?

Paul Twitchell talked about "spiritual travelers" and even teachers throughout history, but around a year before Eckankar became a religion the terms Mahanta and Living Eck Master started coming to the fore (I think one must contemplate when the idea about making Eckankar a religion was first conceived and how far removed in time from the year 1970; when it became a non-profit religion).

This "Eckankar leadership" "mahanta, living eck master" would be the same idea propped up by and supported by the whole unbroken lineage of Eck Masters thingy, along with numerous illustrated words and drawings depicting one Rebazar Tarzs said to be the "Torchbearer" of Eckankar. Now, IMHO, all of these things are related and intertwined. They serve the prime function of defining (true or false) an historical leadership of the religion called "Eckankar". Take away this leadership - if it be found to be false - and you take away the idea of a leader called "mahanta and living eck master". And if instead you find so much of the "leadership" amounts to copied pages from library books ... I'm not sure that works on the application for non-profit religion if asked for the name of the leader. I'm not sure master compiler plagiarizer works either. Or former pulp fiction writer "just having fun" making up a nice-sounding bio. Really I am not sure if that works.

[fife]

Sure. In the dual worlds, the world's of duality you have to have all that stuff and since there wasn't any that all had to be made up. But the full theory of Soul isn't that, is so much more. And once it was finally formulated it does hold water. Without all that rubbish. And that's what makes it valuable. It works without all that. And is frankly better without all that.

[Etznab]

The Wisdom Notes were a way for the Eckankar leader to physically communicate to every member on a monthly basis. I think it was also one of the first Wisdom Notes (January 1968) that told about how the Eck Masters would be helping Paul Twitchell to give instructions to the members of Eckankar. Iow, this was a real beginning of something. And if it be found that these masters were not real, but fictions, then it marks a point at which some person, or persons(s) decided they would go ahead with propagating a deception. And if it was a deception then I think there had to have been a justification. If any of this be true, Does it mean that "leadership" was that important to the future of Eckankar that some person / persons used it to justify the use of fiction propagated as if literal truth? 1968 was around two years before Eckankar became a religion and one year before "mahanta" and "living eck master" appeared in writing used to describe the leader of Eckankar. 1968 was roughly five years after Paul Twitchell first publicly illustrated the word "Eckankar". I mean Was the idea of an Eckankar history and lineage that important that it had to be adopted at all costs for Eckankar to survive amongst all the other (some very similar) religions?

Marman said something about Eckankar having to stand on its own. I wonder what Eckankar had to do in order to make that happen. Did it, like so many other religions, create some pseudo history and religion in order to stand apart as unique? The uniqueness, IMHO, is integrally linked to the "idea" of living masters passing along information in an unbroken lineage. It would be great if true. I really wish and hope it could be true, but evidence seems to point in another direction. A direction that veers off from the truth.

[fife]

Etz. If you want Eckankar to work it's got to work as a full state of consciousness without all the bullshit, nit picking, special titles.

[fife]

Etz. The "real deal" takeaway is the theory of Soul that says you, I, everyone is all the inner world, duality, and nonduality, all of it, right now. All the crazy people stuff is crazy people stuff. Absolutely!

[fife]

Do you want it the way it should be when there's nothing but truth? Because if you say yes, but to everything you're not going to be able to step into the way it should be leaving that behind. Leaving all the crazy people to their karma. They've earned it!

[Etznab]

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:15:37 AM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Do you want it the way it should be when there's nothing but truth? Because if you say yes, but to everything you're not going to be able to step into the way it should be leaving that behind. Leaving all the crazy people to their karma. They've earned it!

Actually, I believe there already is a nothing but truth. Nothing but what is true. Like the natural wood of a piece of furniture that was painted over. The truth is already there, but may not be visible. So I believe there already is an Eckankar that is the truth.

O.K.?

Everybody got that?

A person's view of Eckankar today may not show a picture of the truth in all its facets. Some might feel they know what the truth is. Some might imagine they know what is true. And people have written about, discussed, ask questions and told what they believe / know about religion in general. Sometimes people make sense and tell the truth. Sometimes people imagine the truth and are off the mark. They paint Eckankar according to their imagination of what is true; and it is not always correct. Following this analogy, some people might want to remove what is standing in the way of the truth. And some might like to claim they own the piece of furniture and nobody else is going to change it. Like as if only the owner can determine what it looks like.

Paul Twitchell went to Paris, France when he was a teenager and lived with his sister at Sudar Singh's ashram for around a year? Is that the truth? Or is that what someone painted over the truth? I can look at the books and read what they say, yet underneath it all I imagine a different truth. I may not be able to prove the truth, but if I lack the evidence to prove it. This does not mean there isn't real evidence to prove the truth beyond a doubt.

All of the many New Age pundits who wrote the books that Paul Twitchell copied from to "create" the Eckankar teachings (according to him) were writing about so many pieces of painted furniture, IMHO. In many ways they used words to show other people what they had. Those words, IMO, shown to hundreds or thousands of people were more like painted over truth. To really know the whole truth about what they were saying I believe a person needs to personally see the furniture and what was done to it. And they may need to remove some paint from the piece of furniture to really prove what was done to it.

People learn what works and what doesn't work all the time. Often one needs to know the truth in order to see how something works. And if they do something wrong then a lesson can come in the form of karma. It will continue and it will be persistent in order to teach the seeker after truth.

There are people who have and there are people today who openly criticize Eckankar, the leader and his wife and who characterize members of Eckankar. And some of these are people who have their own versions of Rebazar Tarzs and the "masters". So I'm sorry to break it to everybody, but there be karma here and there be fiction like paint over furniture blocking the truth from many who look at it. However, I submit there is a way to prove the truth and to show what it is. I believe that Eckankar Inc. owns the "evidence" that can show the truth beyond a doubt. It has the choice to do this, or not. And IMO it has the result of the choices it makes.

[Etznab]

Interesting that I wrote that post before reading all of the recent threads that in so many words echo a lot of the same things.

Good to be on topic :)

[fife]

G'morning Etz.

People do go absolutely bananas, absolutely spare, absolutely nuts over the paint job and what the paint job's all about. Don't they? And, (it seems to me) they never consider that there's furniture under the paint, what the furniture is like, and (it seems to me) don't know anything at all about the furniture! ☺

[fife]

Paint job. I like that! That that sums up (to me) the presentation today. Very pretty. Very professional. But where's the furniture?

[fife]

To use a food analogy rather than a furniture analogy, where are the meat, potatoes, and vegetables. Everything appears to be garnish to me. All parsley sprinkles. 💬
🎈

[fife]

Where's the house 🏠 ? There are already so many layers of paint on it. I don't think the mistake was in making Eckankar a religion. I don't think religion was the mistake. I think the pressure was more to have a church 💒 and that's what it is today. Never mind the truth.

[Etznab]

Churchward didn't say that myths were unimportant.

[Etznab]

And yeah. Churchward had opinions and theories. Some of it one could argue was made up, or not correct. And Paul Twitchell copied Churchward and used the words for what has been called the Eckankar Bible. As if the words came out the mouths of Eck Masters!

Pseudo history and religion anybody?

I think it doesn't matter what name is tacked onto the copied, paraphrased and plagiarized Eckankar writings. Copied wrong information, fiction and lies still equals wrong information, fiction and lies! It is not to say the whole religion and the lot of Eckankar teachings are lies.

Changing history is a form of propaganda, IMHO. Like when politicians claim they saw combat, when in fact they did not. And suggesting that Eck Masters were all passing down information for centuries and their history lesson equals what was copied from an encyclopedia, or a library book.

[fife]

Disturbing 😒 and Alarming 😱

[fife]

Naacal Brotherhood anyone? And, old Churchy certainly had a theosophical thing for the number "7".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_Conquers_the_Martians

[Tisra Til]

You say there is an Eckankar that is the truth. Who decides which Eckankar is the truth? You? A panel of those "in the know"? And who decides which ones are in the know?

A little shocked to read that. 😳

[fife]

The Cognoscenti. The Illuminati. 😝

[fife]

Thank God for the Cognoscenti who decide what all knowledge is. And for the Illuminati that decide who the Cognoscenti are. We should all pee our pants in gratitude for the Cognoscenti and Illuminati. Ha ha ha. Whew! 😌 😢 😭 😪 😥 😅 😇 😯 😖 😱 😖

[fife]

Thank God! for the Illuminati and the Cognoscenti. Otherwise how would I know not to...
pick my nose...
with a... military sabre?
with a... morningstar?
with a... caltrop?
with a... stinging jellyfish?
with a... blowtorch?

Choices, choices, choices. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Consequences, consequences, consequences.

God Almighty! Life is an awful place to live!

[Tisra Til]

Sounds like you got it.

[fife]

Yes, well. As an OFFICIAL member of the Illuminati AND Cognoscenti I know these things. How about you? 😑 (great snob emoji)

[Tisra Til]

Nah. I never received an official invite. Put in a good word for me?

[fife]

How DOES one say Great Snob in Sanskrit? Maha, ? . Mahanta (Maha Ahanta, great ego) is so insufficient. We (the royal "WE", of course) need to start a new religion for US. The Para non est US, of course.

[fife]

Of course. Put in a good word for you? Of course. All those lesser mortals, living their lesser mortal lives, thinking their lesser mortal thoughts... hideous (shiver).

[fife]

Whoops, "feeling their lesser mortal feelings", can't forget that.

[fife]

Considering the state of public hygiene, municipal sanitation, clean water, and state of public awareness, all the spiritual greats were great snobs weren't they? I wonder if it occurs to anyone that the Axial Age might have been a period in which people simply discovered Occam's razor and got their heads out of pink clouds for a while?

[Etznab]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 10:27:22 AM UTC-5, Tisra Til wrote:
> You say there is an Eckankar that is the truth. Who decides which Eckankar is the truth? You? A panel of those "in the know"? And who decides which ones are in the know?
>
> A little shocked to read that. 😳

I'm really disturbed people don't understand the word truth. Or what is true.

If something is true then it is true. It doesn't depend on someone saying it is true. Does someone have to say that fish live in water for it to be true? No. The truth is the truth.

So anything within the Eckankar teachings that is true is true. And if people don't know it that doesn't mean it isn't true. Same with the untrue and the fictions. Just because people don't know about the untrue pseudo history and religion doesn't mean it isn't untrue. Maybe in their imagination ... until the day when they find the truth.

[fife]

So, it's beyond the spectrum of mental consciousness. What else is there, because I like that place. It's my favorite place.

[Tisra Til]

But the real question, to me, is if one statement says this is true, and another statement says the complete opposite is true, then how can there be any underlying, unifying truth?

And isn't that what you and Henosis have been doing all of these years? Showing the lack of continuity between one aspect of Eckankar and another through the plagiarising and copying of different texts claiming at times that complete opposites are the Truth.

[Tisra Til]

In the world of metaphysics and mysticism, what is true is true is not always self-evident. What one person says is self-realization, or another says is god-realization, is an opinion based on their personal, subjective experience. If someone else says, 'this is REAL self-realization,' or 'this is what god-realization is really all about,' who is supposed to judge which is right, and the Truth?

In the realm of the transcendent, and subjective, transpersonal experiences, translation is always involved. What is self-realization or god-realization called by someone from China who only understands Mandarin? What is their concept of self, and god? How do you bridge the language gap/barrier to a path that was only written in English, originally?

Something like the Pythagorean Theorem is a universal truth, and is the same self-evident truth in any language, but to know that what is true is true in Eckankar or any other spiritual path that revolves around subjective experiences, is not really self-evident. How do we all speak the same language?

[fife]

Hear! Hear! Hear the man!

[Etznab]

Unifying truth? Underlying unifying truth?

The common reason truths appear opposed is because on is not truth.

[Etznab]

We are not The Borg. And truth can resist the pseudo history and lies no matter what package they are wrapped in.

Subjective, Inner Reality, Spiritual, Imagination, Self-Realized, Beyond the Mind, etc. Fiction wrapped in those packages is still fiction!

You want a judge? Some all-knowing guru to say what is true and what is not? Because people wearing that title are numerous and they have left their marks on history. Many were not honest. Some were deluded. And some said rely on yourself for the answer. And don't worry. Karma will teach you the difference between right and wrong, true and false. Even if it takes lifetimes!

[fife]

Etznab wrote:
I'm really disturbed people don't understand the word truth. Or what is true.

Believe me, Etznab. No one who reads a.r.e. is the least bit surprised that you are.

Etznab wrote;
We are not the Borg. And truth can resist the pseudo history and lies no matter what the package is wrapped in.

Sounds like the Borg. Assimilating everything. Resistance is futile. I think you have a fictional idea of truth, its role, and purpose. Because frankly everyone knows what the word means and truth of itself is. It's disturbing that you're obsessed beyond normality about it.

[Tisra Til]

If there is some underlying truth to Eckankar, then there should be some kind of train of reasoning and logic that unifies and pieces together all of the different aspects that Paul Twitchell, Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp wrote and spoke about over the past decades, and which is knowable and realizable. If there is not, and there is one lie or contradiction contained within all of the written and spoken communications that Eckankar has produced, then how is it possible for it to be a true or honest path?

After all, these were/are (self-proclaimed) God-men - the gods (God's) emissaries on earth - and were/are the living embodiment of the highest of knowledge and truth. Would they lie? To us mere mortals? Or contain lies within truths? If so, how are they to be trusted?

Or are all that they produced in the nature of Zen koans, where you are supposed to contemplate on what was written or said by the teacher- master, and the real truth is revealed and no longer concealed (as in occult- hidden)?
Is this how you see Eckankar?

[Tisra Til]

I agree with the last two sentences.

I agree with this definition of guru:

The word guru (Sanskrit: गुरु), a noun, connotes "teacher" in Sanskrit, but in ancient Indian traditions it has contextual meanings with significance beyond what teacher means in English.[2] The guru is more than someone who teaches a specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a "counselor, a sort of parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life."[2] The word has the same meaning in other languages derived from or borrowing words from Sanskrit, such as Hindi, Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Odia, Bengali, Gujarati and Nepali. The Malayalam term Acharyan or Asan is derived from the Sanskrit word Acharya.

गुशब्दस्त्वन्धकारः स्यात्‌ रुशब्दस्तन्निरोधकः।
अन्धकारनिरोधित्वात्‌ गुरुरित्यभिधीयते॥ १६॥

The syllable gu means darkness, the syllable ru, he who dispels them,
Because of the power to dispel darkness, the guru is thus named.

— Advayataraka Upanishad, Verse 16[23][24]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru

[fife]

Hmmm. Yes. 😃 Gu/ru dark/light. Refers to the id. You learn from one until you're confident enough with you're own to go your own way, use your own independently.

The koans are a trick. The whole thing to Zen or Chan or Ch'an, whatever, is to stop thinking. Once the student realizes the teacher is tricking him into thinking by giving him a koan to puzzle and think about, he gets it.

Eckankar is a bunch of stuff from a lot of paths. Once you for forget about Eckankar and just look at the parts, what they mean and how they go together, that's interesting. That is something.

As far as going face to face with Eckankar and starting at the bottom when it's own doctrine says start at top and with full consciousness. Well, you can and should bin what its doing and go the other way.

Probably outside of Eckankar because there's no way inside.

[fife]

Every path that's similar throws some light of better understanding on the others it's similar to. And when you get a path that makes a stab at consciousness - because consciousness is what you want to understand and develop anyway... it's interesting. Because you start looking at how consciousness here, illuminates consciousness there and you start developing your own into a less affected one, yourself.

[fife]

Once you stop thinking, gathering all the possibilities, you can start dealing with duality and nonduality as they are.

[fife]

... can cut through all the bullshit, all the blather you've been listening to, and come up with your own system based on the principle of Occam's razor. Use the simplest (always the best) theory around to explain each part and make that your system, use that.

[fife]

Ha ha ha. That's the ultimate takeaway from Eckankar. You make your OWN system to explain the whole of consciousness. And all the thousands or tens of thousands who don't get that? Well, God bless 'em and their karma.

[Tisra Til]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Every path that's similar throws some light of better understanding on the others it's similar to. And when you get a path that makes a stab at consciousness - because consciousness is what you want to understand and develop anyway... it's interesting. Because you start looking at how consciousness here, illuminates consciousness there and you start developing your own into a less affected one, yourself.

Yes. I've had a pretty eclectic view of the land of consciousness since early on in my search. Explored a lot. One book that had a big influence early on was The Spectrum of Consciousness, by Ken Wilber. I reread that quite a bit. He was influence by a guru by the name of Aurobindo, I believe was his name.

[fife]

☺ Yes. I'm familiar with Ken Wilber from the '70s and Sri Aurobindo from when there was an internet to use.

[fife]

The thing is... everyone we've read, everything we've studied... they've all had a system of their own that they've explained everything with and through. Why not "you and me"? Don't we, and can't we? Of course we do and of course we can.

[fife]

You've studied a lot more in the way of Theosophy and some other things, than I have. Yet I can understand everything you say. Perfectly. The reasoning. The philosophy. Do you know what I mean?

[Tisra Til]

I'd like to think so 🙃

An ongoing, infinite journey through time and space.....
And elsewhere. 🚀

[fife]

Whoa. How do you do that? The upside-down simile? Must be the iPhone. I don't have that on mine. ☺

[fife]

The little thing I wrote up in the topics "Illustrations" and "Once upon a time... " may mean nothing to everybody. I know that. But with that, with those, I can deal with every possibility of mind, duality, and nonduality that's come along in the last 4,000 years. So it's useful to me. And it's similar to the way that's set up for Eckankar. So I posted it here for what it's worth.

For better or worse what Paul Twitchell was saying was "set up your own system" and that used to be a prominent thing in the beginning. All submerged now because nobody gets that.

The mistake everyone makes, the mistake with every path, is that people think they have to imprint all of someone's junk on themselves. When in fact, if the author is any good he's only saying "this is how I did it for myself" not copy this verbatim 100%. Rather, put something together for yourself that deals with the whole, the entirety of consciousness.

[fife]

And... back to getting stuck on a path. People think a system is everything. It's not. It's only for processing. You've got to put something in. Study philosophy, study music. Something. Otherwise the system is useless. Not worthless. But useless. What people do on this forum is put in passion. Passion. No passion. Mind stuff. They put in shit and it doesn't come out rose water. So they say, "see, Eckankar is no good." Well, Eckankar's not my fave but if you put shit into a process that's what comes out. If you want rose water you have to put in some rose water. But you can't explain that to some people because the mind is where they're at in their consciousness. It's all they know. It's the only part of the process they know. The only part of their consciousness that they know.

[fife]

And it (the mind) doesn't turn poop onto rose water. So if someone thinks that's what Eckankar or anything is all about or is supposed to be all about they're wrong. And they need to take a closer look at whatever it is. Because I'll guarantee that whatever it is, is not telling them that. That may be what they want, that may be what they're telling themselves they're hearing because that's what they want but that's not what consciousness does nor is it the way it processes.

[Etznab]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 4:50:53 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> And it (the mind) doesn't turn poop onto rose water. So if someone thinks that's what Eckankar or anything is all about or is supposed to be all about they're wrong. And they need to take a closer look at whatever it is. Because I'll guarantee that whatever it is, is not telling them that. That may be what they want, that may be what they're telling themselves they're hearing because that's what they want but that's not what consciousness does nor is it the way it processes.

IMO Eckankar's got some problems thanks to Paul Twitchell and those who helped to establish and make it into a religion. Other religions have problems too, but not anybody hardly pays attention. (Like the emperor's new clothes. Nobody wants to go against the grain and talk about the truth. Almost nobody, that is.)

And ya know, I hear not only Eckists saying "Why bother?" "Nobody cares." "Your not gonna change anything anyway." Etc, etc. But I see ex-members holding the same views.

That darned old truth. Nobody wants to discover what it is, or take the time and do the hard work to make it happen. Almost nobody, that is. People talk about the plagiarism and other research, but do they do any research of their own? They just know everything, just like they know what the books and the gurus say and can repeat them like a parrot. That's how well all these Eckankar critics understand everything. What is true and what is not. They read it in a book, or they read it here and then criticize without adding to it. Like Rich Smith who knew how much plagiarism there was, but when asked if he even read the most heavily plagiarized book (Path Of The Masters) he said no! And the Eckists who comment in public news articles about plagiarism they call it (in so many words) "the plagiarism" as if they know all about it. Chances are they don't know about it because Eckankar doesn't teach about it! And unless they take the initiative and do a personal study and research (in which case they will most likely be marginalized by Eckists and non-Eckists alike for having the nerve, or having a brain to seek the truth on their own), unless they care to know the truth then they can just as well practice being a parrot and parroting the truth according to others and popular ignorance.

The thing is, people just don't do it. They don't try to sift out the facts from the fictions with regard to religion because they are so convinced that already they know more than most. They quote the words and the research of others, or point to a book. Like how many Eckists defaulted to Doug Marman's book(s)? How many Ex-eckists defaulted to David Lane's book? Or Ford Johnson's book? Why did people not try to take things further? Maybe the same reason why people don't try to second guess their guru, or challenge them about a lie.

When Michael Owens claimed to have become a master I emailed and asked him what was the date? And doing that told me a lot more than if I had just accepted what he and others wrote.

Eckankar plagiarism. Everybody's an expert critic and knows all about it. Like, if you can first get anybody to discuss the topic they will probably say a few words and then desperately try to change the subject! Because they can't handle where it leads. Many of the enlightened New Age groupies are on a constant high until faced with the sobering truth they are largely ignorant and what they took for wisdom was a feel-good emotion that convinced them they were somehow special and deserving. Challenge people about what they know and watch how they freak out when having to think on their own without a book to quote.

Why does Eckankar print copied / plagiarized material and then claim it belongs to the Eckankar organization? or one of the Eck Masters like Rebazar Tarzs? So many think they know the answer, but do they? Do people really know the whole truth about why this happened and why it continues to happen? I'm sure there are a lot of people confident they know all about it. At the same time, How many have researched it on their own and shared what they found with others? Like as if they found something new? I found new things. Sean and Artemis found new things. Things that David, Doug and Ford Johnson didn't write about. Now let me see? How many others are there that we know of? How many others have done some research and added to what already was known?

[fife]

Etz

The truth about what Etz? That's the thing. The important thing. What is it you want to do that you have to have truth for. That's what you have to decide or make your mind up about. What tells the whole story.

[fife]

Eckankar really isn't a path. That's what's all screwed up. Its an example of how to put something together that's expanded across the whole of Consciousness. An example to give you the idea of how you can do the same thing. Put together something across the whole of Consciousness.

[fife]

Etz

It's not about mimicry. Its not about imprinting Eckankar on yourself. Its an example of how you can put something together that explains the whole of Consciousness and its purpose, to you.

[Henosis Sage]

On Tuesday, 11 June 2019 13:11:21 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:

I can 'relate' to all of that.

>
> When Michael Owens claimed to have become a master I emailed and asked him what was the date? And doing that told me a lot more than if I had just accepted what he and others wrote.
>

LMAO ... omg you "cheeky bugger" ... emailed him? Who'd have thought to do that, let alone DO IT?

Oh please tell me what he said!! And then tell me what you "learned" from that "interaction". :-)

> Eckankar plagiarism. Everybody's an expert critic and knows all about it.

Yabba dabba do, they sure do! :-)

> Why does Eckankar print copied / plagiarized material and then claim it belongs to the Eckankar organization? or one of the Eck Masters like Rebazar Tarzs? So many think they know the answer, but do they? Do people really know the whole truth about why this happened and why it continues to happen?

Short answer? Nope.

> I'm sure there are a lot of people confident they know all about it. At the same time, How many have researched it on their own and shared what they found with others?

I think it's enough to put a basketball team on the court. hehehehe

> Like as if they found something new? I found new things. Sean and Artemis found new things. Things that David, Doug and Ford Johnson didn't write about.

What, "a few things" ???

Only a "few" ???

Or was it a few mountains of plagiarisms?

As Bones on Star Trek would say ... "My God Man!" :-)

[Henosis Sage]

On Tuesday, 11 June 2019 13:22:58 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Etz
>
> The truth about what Etz?

The truth about the plagiarism silly.

"Do people really know the whole truth about why this happened and why it continues to happen?"

Follow that bouncing ball as it hits on the words Fife. ;-)

[fife]

Henosis

Hi. No, I can, have, and do follow the ball. I don't get lost at basketball games. But then there's the truth about mind theory, the theory of duality, and the theory of nonduality. All of which exist with or without Eckankar. Did before it came on the scene. And would still exist if it disappeared tomorrow.

There's all the rot, the lies, the bent ideas, and the coveup(s) of the Eckankar basketball game. Then there's all that other stuff you don't even need Eckankar for to study.

[fife]

Henosis

And ☺ I might add, if you do study Spiritual Consciousness i.e. mind theory, duality theory, and nonduality theory, the whole consciousness of Soul, just to figure out WTF is going on with Eckankar, that's ANOTHER way to figure out you've had enough of it. Had enough of Eckankar.

[Henosis Sage]

On Tuesday, 11 June 2019 16:02:08 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Henosis
>
> And ☺ I might add, if you do study Spiritual Consciousness i.e. mind theory, duality theory, and nonduality theory, the whole consciousness of Soul, just to figure out WTF is going on with Eckankar, that's ANOTHER way to figure out you've had enough of it. Had enough of Eckankar.

iow Etznab hijacked your thread, it happens. Comes with the territory. :-)

[fife]

Henosis

No, no. It's all good. I don't know that Etznab hijacked anything. But I did post another topic. Don't get passed off at me for it.

[Henosis Sage]

On Tuesday, 11 June 2019 17:15:09 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Henosis
>
> No, no. It's all good. I don't know that Etznab hijacked anything. But I did post another topic. Don't get passed off at me for it.

I'm not pissed off with you. where do you (and so many other people) get such ideas from?

[Etznab]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 10:37:31 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Etz
>
> It's not about mimicry. Its not about imprinting Eckankar on yourself. Its an example of how you can put something together that explains the whole of Consciousness and its purpose, to you.

What you've been writing about I don't follow. I think you have your own understanding than me and that you use a different set of words than I would choose.

[Etznab]

I tried to keep it confidential, but nonetheless do believe I shared something about it here in the archives. Give me a day, or two to track down the info.

[Etznab]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 12:10:34 AM UTC-5, Henosis Sage wrote:

I was being modest.

Yes. It was way more than a few things.

[Henosis Sage]

I know mate, and I'm just being a funny "big tease", it's all good. (big smile)

[fife]

Etznab wrote:
What you've been writing I don't follow.

That's okay. Never mind.

[Etznab]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 10:22:58 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Etz
>
> The truth about what Etz? That's the thing. The important thing. What is it you want to do that you have to have truth for. That's what you have to decide or make your mind up about. What tells the whole story.

Fife trying to tell me what is the important thing. And what do I want to have truth for?

To be frank. That sounds like B.S. to me. And the trying to tell me what I have to decide or make my mind up about? It sounds like a bunch of crappy writing to me.

[Henosis Sage]

I think fife's emphasis is on this : ... "What tells the whole story. "

He recongnises (i think) that the hisdtory, copying, master name chnages etc etc) is only a part of the whole story, the whole truth.

that there are also many other aspects where eckankar is off the rails etc.

So IF I am grasping what he means (and I could be wrong of course) is that his own INTEREST is blowing up the WHOLE STORY, fixing the whole truth iow .... and no only the copying BS bits of objective history not adding up.

I think he sees the plagiarism, and copying, and lies, and fake history, and story telling as being large portions of eckankar being faulty, but maybe as legs of the elephant and not the whole elephant????

You would agree, and I agree with that .... eg what happened with Darwin in 83 is another weird unsustainable "fault" too .... it doesn't add up. But what if the entire theiory of inner planes and lords of the planes etc etc is all BS as well ... and the bits that really rely on "faith" alone or dubious dreams etc. ?

MInd you putting this all on you or anyone else to "should be talking about it" is a bit pushy ... but I sense a bit of natural frustration there too. But that's not your problem nor did you cause it, or me or anyone. oh well, one of those "shit happens" moments I suspect .... we'll see. take care cheers

[fife]

Henosis

You're right. "Should be talking about" is more than a "bit" pushy. And you're right in the earlier part of the post as well. It's just "more of the elephant". There's this part, and this part, and this part. Yes.

[Henosis Sage]

On Monday, 17 June 2019 14:08:25 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Henosis
>
> You're right. "Should be talking about" is more than a "bit" pushy. And you're right in the earlier part of the post as well. It's just "more of the elephant". There's this part, and this part, and this part. Yes.

OK great. (sigh)

Now, a while back I suggested (humbly, not pushy) an option was to write a book on it ... by way of starting with posts that broke down all the various aspects YOU find important.

It's too damned complex Fife ... it has to be presented as an OVERVIEW of what Eckankar is, then broken down into component parts (using real life examples/and quotes), and then "compared" to the very traditions it actually is based upon (plagiarisms / PT history issues included etc) and then re-assembled back into the obvious dysfunctional incoherent "whole" again at the end.

I'm just not interested, at one time it was a possibility, but I decided it would be a total waste of time and energy plus that I didn't have the skills or patience to do it.

But that's what is needed, imho, because what Lane, Ford, and marman,and steven mayer and everyone else have done (etznab/ptha/ ??) is just not "good enough"

None of it tackles the "whole truth of it"


eg Ford tried to make an entirely new "spirituality path" out his research ... the HCS .... like how DUMB was that to attempt at that time? He assumed he already KNEW IT ALL .... (sigh)

[fife]

Henosis

Look, I'm sorry, man. I'm just trying to get out of this. I shouldn't have posted anything in response. I was just trying to agree with you.

Write a book? I'm sure that's a helpful idea from your P.O.V. but it's not the way I would. You know the drill. Anything like that would be "how do you know that?", "prove it", "that's your point of view", "that's not my Eckankar". So it would be (is) a loser from before pen even touches paper.

I have no trouble with what you, Etznab, David Lane, and whoever, have done with the objective side of Eckankar. None. Maybe I don't say that often enough. Rest easy about that.

Just don't ask me "but then, why?" right now. That's just going to stir things up again. Besides, you know why. Just this evening you posted "what you think I mean" and "where you think I'm coming from" and you're right.

Everyone experiences some cognitive dissonance when they're writing and some cognitive dissonance when they're reading. I can't account for that. No one can. None of us can.

[fife]

I think we're all trying for cognitive resonance (harmony) but the way we put ourselves across doesn't always work that way on everyone. Maybe a little too much unnecessary stuff in between our opening statement or question and our final statement or question? Maybe we don't think so but reader's minds tend to go a little bit sideways and back if there's too much between opening and closing.

[fife]

"It's too damn complex Fife... " Yes.
Unfortunately. How do you describe an elephant? So everyone's satisfied. Well, you have to begin with the idea that someone wants a description of an elephant. But that's not true either. :-)

[Henosis Sage]

On Monday, 17 June 2019 17:49:46 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> "It's too damn complex Fife... " Yes.
> Unfortunately. How do you describe an elephant? So everyone's satisfied. Well, you have to begin with the idea that someone wants a description of an elephant. But that's not true either. :-)

You're right, I agree. :-)

[Henosis Sage]

Ain't it a bithc? :-)

OK, re book, I mean more as in "book size" not actually a book ala doing a marman.

and I heard you, you don;t want to go there, and I that's ok ... I wasn;t saying you "should" do it ... only saying to address the "whole of it" that's the kind of approach that's needed .... alternatively a PhD paper by some fired up post-graduate .. it needs that level of research and professional laying out using some decent "standards" along the way.

which btw is one of things I found wanting in Dr D C Lane ... if anyone had the talent and the resources to later in life to do a proper research project into eckankar it was him .... not himself alone, but by mentoring his students or someone else to do the work.

But to him it was always just a "hobby" or more like a "joke" to him. He never took it serious enough imho and he has never published everything he knows or was passed onto to him either. But that was his choice to make, no one else's.

sorry for the side bar, it just popped up.

but hey, how on earth could anyone sensibly compare eckankar with Tao te ching, or Buddhism, or ..... whatever? It's not even worth comparing it to scientology, or new thought, the Sikhs or even radhasoami .... they are just not comparable imho.

But feel free if you can break down some parts of it, and show whatever it is you think needs most to be pointed out to those who may never have thought of it that way ... nothing needs to be perfect or complete imho. One day I just stopped adding anything more to the ptha archive, I was "done", no reason, I was just done with it.

[fife]

Henosis

Yeah. Kewel! I won't say I'm in two minds about the whole thing but on the one hand I don't care about Eckankar and on the other hand it was a thorn in my butt for years so I'm not likely to forget. I really don't have any need to "dis" anyone or anything but I'm not likely to forget, that's all.

Ha ha. Hobbyists? Aren't we all! Isn't that what all of us are? Isn't a.r.e. and posting here some kind of a hobby? Hardly life and death. :-)