"Kal Niranjan"
Etznab
I am wondering what is the history for
"Kal Niranjan". The history of the words.
I'd like to contribute some of what
I already found.
"Kal" could be a reference to "time",
I suspect. As for "Niranjan", I used to
think it was a possible reference to the
color orange.
narang - "orange" (Persian).
naranj - "orange" (Arabic)
The word "nir" in some languages seems
to suggest "light", but also "without". For the
"light" reference, I found this word curious.
norang - "yellow" (Korean)
I suspected the color orange on account
of the classical reference for that color with
the "casual plane" where "karmic memories"
are stored. Orange is the typical color assoc-
iated with the casual plane, I do suspect, in
Eckankar dogma and possibly other similar
paths.
For what it's worth, here is the wikipedia
definition - the current one - for "Niranjan".
Niranjan is one of the names of Venkateshwara,
a god in Hindu religion. Niranjan is another name/
form of Lord Shiva.The literal meaning in Sanskrit
is "Fearless".(Nir=Without;Anjan=fear; in Sanskrit
"Anjan" means "MAYA" as in the causal force for
all feelings of "self" and belongings. the word being
a porttmanteau in sanskrit means one without blem-
ishes [anjanasya abhavaha]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niranjan
I also searched a Sanskrit dictionary & didn't
find "niranjan", or even "anjan". However, I did
find a listing for "niran".
1 niraN (only %{-raNya4thas}) , to rejoice or
delight in (instr.) RV. i , 112 , 18.
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
And I only found a few words containing "anj".
For example: "anjali"
1 anjali see and v. below.
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/
From another wikipedia link about "Niranjan" I
found:
"Alakh Niranjan became a very popular name for
God all over India during and after Gorakhnath's
time. Later Sikh Guru Nanak used this holy name
to denote God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alakh_Niranjan
From another (Sikh?) link I found:
AYsw nwmu inrMjnu hoie]
AESAA NAAM NIRANJAN HOE
His Name is so pure (Niranjan means un-
adulterated, pure, unaffected by the worldly
evils called ‘Maya’)
http://www.sikhpoint.com/religion/philosophyofsikhism/Banis/japuji/Rajendra%20Singh/pauri14c.htm
Taking into account the previous history
so far, I suspect the word "Kal" to be some
kind of modifier for the word "niranjan" - in
the compound "Kal Niranjan".
My preliminary suspicion is an allusion to
the way "time" affects "light". How the "light"
of "higher worlds / planes / dimensions and
vibrations" is affected by what is "time".
Anybody else have a clue about history
for this word ("kal niranjan")? How it came
to be? What it meant to people when first
coined?
This next link came up in a search for
"kal niranjan" and might have something
in the way of history prior to "Eckankar"
- concerning the term "kal", at least. So
far, I haven't read the whole page. I did
see reference to Kabir, though.
Example (3rd paragraph on page):
".... The fall of Kal as is described in the
Anurag Sagar of Kabir is one of the most
innovative explanations of the origin of evil
I've even found in the world religions. ...."
http://www.spiritualawakeningradio.com/leavematrix.html
There is a link to the Anurag Sagar that
I found. It looks to be illustrated like myth-
ology, in part, but I did find the last para-
graph interesting at
http://www.aors-dbbs.org/enter/books/anurag_sagar_part.htm
Also, there seems to be a link on that page
and, apparently, the idea of "kal niranjan" was
not so foreign to Radha Swami teachings.
I don't know how Radha Swami teachings
arrived at this knowledge, or what was their
source for the history of Kabir. Nonetheless,
the story continues here:
http://www.aors-dbbs.org/enter/books/anurag-sagar1/asp1p001.htm
*********************************************
A lot of information on this A.R.E. thread
is somewhat new to me and so I'm just now
looking at some of the links and information
for the first time. I began from the desire to
research "kal niranjan" further. And though
Radha Swami and Eckankar share similar
terms / ideas in their respective dogmas, I
haven't seen much about this Anurag Sagar
before.
Etznab
Etznab
It wasn't in the glossary section of Julian
Johnson's The Path of the Masters, but it
was in the Index, however, a reference to
The Negative Power and Kal Niranjan. See
page 257., or 7. THE NEGATIVE POWER.
Going back to the history of words, there
were some definitions for "ananda" and "nir-
ananda" I found curious.
1 ananda mfn. joyless , cheerless ; (%{As}) m.
pl.N. of a purgatory Up. [25,2]
2 Ananda m. happiness, joy, enjoyment, sensual
pleasure RV. AV. VS. R. Ragh. &c.; m. and (%{am})
n. `" pure happiness "' , one of the three attributes of
A1tman or Brahman in the Veda1nta philosophy ...."
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
One says "joy" and another says "joyless". I found
that curious. At the same link (you have to type in &
search for the word) I found this for anda:
1 aNDa n. (also m. L.) [ %{am}. Un2.] , an egg , a
testicle ; the scrotum ; the musk bag ; semen virile L.;
N. of S3iva (from his being identified with the Brahma
1n2d2a or mundane egg).
2 ANDa n. (fr. %{aNDa}), an egg RV. AV. &c.; (%{au4})
m. du. the testicles AV. ix , 7 , 13 VS. &c. ; (%{ANDyau4})
f. du. (fr. sg. %{ANDI4}) id. AV. vi , 138 , 2.
3 Anda m. (%{and} Comm. on VS. xxx , 16) , one who
makes fetters VS.
The primary definition appears to be an egg, and
eggs are generally larger at one end and smaller at
another. The "inner planes" or worlds of the "lower
universe" were described as being "egg-like", I think,
in some religious dogma.
There was another word, but I don't know whether
it's related to "niranjan".
1 nirAnanda mf(%{A})n. joyless, sorrowful , sad ,
melancholy MBh. R. &c. ; %{-kara} mf(%{I})n.
causing no pleasure , afflicting MBh. Hariv
Just musing here, but if the word "mahanta" were
spelled with a "d" instead of "t" it would spell "maha-
nda" - "Great Egg"?
Mahanda Gandhi comes to mind. Not on account
of the shape of his head, but I'm looking for what the
word "mahanda" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Gandhi
Sometimes it's "Mahatma", I presume.
BTW, I wanted to mention this days ago, but then
forgot about it. What appears to be a big difference
between the book by Julian Johnson and Eckankar
teachings. It has to do with the word "mahanta". The
word "mahanta" does nott appear in the glossary, or
in the Index! This appears to be one major difference
between the teachings of Eckankar & Radha Soami.
I don't know whether Sant Mat teachings mention it,
"mahanta", either.
Come to think of it, I don't know for a fact whether
"mahanta" was mentioned even in Eckankar - in the
beginning - or before 1969.
"Great Egg" ... what an archetypical symbol? But
then, it could beg that question of which came first,
the egg? or the one who laid it?
Etznab
TianYue
Hi Etznab,
In regard to this comment you made:
> It wasn't in the glossary section of Julian
> Johnson's The Path of the Masters, but it
> was in the Index, however, a reference to
> The Negative Power and Kal Niranjan. See
> page 257., or 7. THE NEGATIVE POWER.
Yep, Eckankar and Radhasoami do share commonalities about Kal
Niranjan, and for good reason. Some of the pages from the section you
referred to in Path of the Masters that explain Kal Niranjan should be
very familiar to Eckists. They are plagiarized in the Sharyat Ki
Sugmad, Book II. Pages 260 and 261 from Path of the Masters are
largely the basis of two of the pages in chapter eight of the SKS II,
chapter eight. I'm fairly certain much of the rest of the oddly
familiar material from that section are also plagiarized. It would
take time to chase it down.
Tianyue
TianYue
I should have noted in my previous post which pages in the SKS II,
exactly, correspond to The Path of the Masters pages. The copy of the
Shariyat II that I'm using is the 1981 version (pre-Klemp). Most of
the paragraphs on pages 138 and 139 are plagiarized from pages 260 and
261 in The Path of the Masters.
As far as I know, these have never been identified previously and are
new examples of plagiary, but I could be wrong. Maybe someone else has
reported them, too.
The path of the Masters expresses a theology that is mostly identical
to Eckankar's, with certain modifications PT made, such as a departure
from such things as vegetarianism and a modification of the belief in
the possibility of transmigration into "lower" non-human animal forms.
Any Eckist reading the book would instantly recognize the close
parallels. The fact is, the book has been incorporated with the use of
plagiarism into Eckankar's texts, either through direct, word for word
copying, or close paraphrasing, or in some cases a looser rewriting of
large tracts that is clearly derivative.
Eckankar = Radhasoami. It is a modified copy of the Radhasoami
philosophy and way of life.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
I was aware at the time this Path Of The Masters
section on Kal Niranjan was similar to Eckankar"s
version, but I didn't want to take the time to illustrate
both sources and the similarity. Thanks for finding
the similar section in Eckankar literature & pointing
it out.
This is why I advised people who did not read
The Path Of The Masters to take the trouble and
read it. Otherwise, they would not know the fuller
extent to what has been called plagiarism.
When I read that book I was surprised to see
how much material from it was already familiar to
me. What surprised me the most, however, were
the sections of it that Paul Twitchell had attributed
to Eck Master Rebazar Tarzs!!! It's something I've
written about repeatedly here at A.R.E. It does not
have to matter, of course, but it did matter to me!
I don't believe that Eckankar teachings prepared
me for that discovery. I kinda doubt everybody in
Eckankar is prepared to discover this, too.
For some people, I suspect it could come as a
big surprise. I suspect some people could be very
surprised! - if they actually read The path Of The
Masters for themself.
Perhaps (I'm just speculating) some people are
not going to discover this, but others will. Eventually,
though, it could become common knowledge and so
I guess Eckankar is just going to let everybody find
it out on their own, in their own time.
I have tried to "look ahead" over the years and
imagine how such history is going to play out. As
an Eckist, I've also tried to prepare myself for the
times when new people might come to me and ask
about this. What do I tell them? This is something
I have contemplated for many, many days. This is
one of the reasons I chose to research the subject,
take extensive notes, and compile numerous refer-
ences.
I do not believe that "Never mind that." is going to
work for everybody. I'd rather know the actual facts.
That is just me. Meanwhile, I try not to let the things
I discover disqualify all the good things that I came
across (& come across) in the Eckankar teachings.
I admit this has been very, very challenging for me
at times because I've learned it can be a sensitive
area to touch on. Especially to talk about it openly
at private (members only) and public Eck events. I
mean, not everybody wants to talk about Eckankar
history and, for some, it could become very disturb-
ing - not only for those who hear about it, but also
for those who want and / or attempt to talk about it.
Did you read the section, Tianyue, I mentioned
from the book IN MY SOUL I AM FREE? Especially
page 165? Let me know, if you get the time, how it
impresses you. If you don't have that book let me
know and maybe I can take the trouble to illustrate
it.
Etznab
Rich
> I was aware at the time this Path Of The Masters
> section on Kal Niranjan was similar to Eckankar"s
> version, but I didn't want to take the time to illustrate
> both sources and the similarity.
They have been illustrated. A quick search found them posted here as recent
as four years ago. Most likely they were documented long before that.
<snip>
> For some people, I suspect it could come as a
> big surprise. I suspect some people could be very
> surprised! - if they actually read The path Of The
> Masters for themself.
I'm sure there are some that would be surprised although I imagine that most
would react the same as the majority have in the past. -> 'Yes, I know there
is a small amount of plagiarism but it doesn't impact my spiritual growth.'
Those of us who followed this through my challenge to David Lane et al here
and on other groups, haven't seen anything new documented quotes in many
years. While I'm sure there may be tidbits more here and there, for the most
part I'd say it a done deal since dozens of people have been researching it
starting over thirty years ago.
> Perhaps (I'm just speculating) some people are
> not going to discover this, but others will. Eventually,
> though, it could become common knowledge and so
> I guess Eckankar is just going to let everybody find
> it out on their own, in their own time.
Did you really forget all the quotes where Harold has talked and written
about this issue that have been posted here?!? Again long ago, and some of
them even on the main Eckankar web site. So if anyone has no knowledge about
it, it's readily available to them if they are interested in doing the
research. It's my experience that it is not an important issue for most
people so when they do scan it, it just gets dismissed as something that
neither enhances nor detracts from their spiritual growth. What has made it
an issue for some is the egregious exaggeration, negative imagination of
intent, and hyperbole surrounding the actual facts. Fanatical detractors of
course are compelled to introduce those into any subject of discussion. Yet
I believe that it is common knowledge among Eckists that the teachings do
stem from other teachings, some of which can be traced back hundreds and
even thousands of years ago. Personally I find it fascinating that much of
the tenets can be traced back to small selected groups throughout recorded
history. For me it supports the Eckankar teaching's validity that Paul
gleaned and used"...the golden thread, so fine as to be invisible yet so
strong as to be unbreakable..." and expressed it in a westernized manner for
modern perceptions.
> I have tried to "look ahead" over the years and
> imagine how such history is going to play out. As
> an Eckist, I've also tried to prepare myself for the
> times when new people might come to me and ask
> about this. What do I tell them?
Rather than overlaying personal bias, following the example of the manner in
which the Living ECK Master addressed the issue would be one prudent way to
answer.
> This is something
> I have contemplated for many, many days. This is
> one of the reasons I chose to research the subject,
> take extensive notes, and compile numerous refer-
> ences.
>
> I do not believe that "Never mind that." is going to
> work for everybody.
It never did. A few may have dismissed it that way in the past because of
there own insecurities, but it's clearly something that ought to be openly
touched on, if someone asks. However, teaching it as a major issue when it
is in fact not, speaks to a lack of balance in the one presenting it that
way. It's a sidetrack rather than the mainline. That said, granted it is
necessary for some such as yourself to run along those rails because for you
it is a major issue. That's fine. Yet I think that one of the reasons you
get negative reactions from those that are confident is that presenting more
and more trivia, trivial details, in no way leads to resolving the issue.
It's the resolution of stumbling blocks, not piling them higher, which
promotes spiritual growth. See what I mean?
> I'd rather know the actual facts.
> That is just me. Meanwhile, I try not to let the things
> I discover disqualify all the good things that I came
> across (& come across) in the Eckankar teachings.
> I admit this has been very, very challenging for me
> at times because I've learned it can be a sensitive
> area to touch on. Especially to talk about it openly
> at private (members only) and public Eck events. I
> mean, not everybody wants to talk about Eckankar
> history and, for some, it could become very disturb-
> ing - not only for those who hear about it, but also
> for those who want and / or attempt to talk about it.
I don't find discussing the issue sensitive at all. I'm totally comfortable
with it since I've resolved it a long time ago. It's the hyperbole that's
disturbing. It's the manner in which it is foisted into a discussion, rather
than answering queries of those who may be shocked precisely because of the
misrepresentations and exaggerations they have seen. I've seen that it is
the emotions of one's own doubts that make it a challenge to discuss. Having
the wherewithal to see the issue and express it from a more expansive
spiritual perspective relegates the minutia of the 'facts' to pale in the
Light of Knowingness. That's what spiritual path as I see it is about. It's
not ignoring, but placing the mundane as secondary to the goal of spiritual
liberation. That's the challenge. It's no surprise that few are ready or
willing to pursue that in this lifetime.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Dennis
"Etznab" wrote in message
I am wondering what is the history for "Kal Niranjan".
The history of the words.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand the background and purpose of Kal Niranjan, you must
understand the history of creation itself; The Ocean of Love. You can find
the answer you seek in the Anurag Sagar of Kabir.
'Anurag Sagar' is the most famous book of Kabir Sahib.
Questions about the creation of universe asked by Dhani Dharam Dass, the
main disciple of Kabir Sahib, have been given in this book.
And in reply Kabir Sahib has given a complete description of the creation of
universe.
Kabir Sahib says that in the beginning God was in deep thoughtless
meditation and there was nothing else except 'Him'.
The five elements had not manifested.
Neither was this universe, nor any soul. All this (manifested universe) was
within God.
In the Chapter on "The Story of Creation", Kal is defined as "KAL NIRANJAN:
Full name of the Negative Power, often shortened to Kal, (q.v.). Niranjan
means "beyond illusion," and is applied to Kal ("Time") because he is the
creator of illusion."
The story talks about "The birth of creation- The creation of Sat Purush".
In the poem, Sat Purush creates "Manifestation of sixteen sons".
Each son represents an aspect of Sat Purush which had to manifest separately
in order for Creation to take place, even on the highest spiritual level.
"Creation," esoterically speaking, means just this: God separating Himself
into so many parts, which become the Creation.
Since the Ultimate Reality is the oneness of God, not His many-ness (sic),
there is a very real sense in which Creation on any level, even the highest,
is unreal and illusory.
Kirpal Singh wrote "Creation as such does not exist per se.
The actual and the real is ever the same and is not subject to change . . .
there can be nothing apart from the Absolute Unity.
It projects Itself into varying forms, which are the expression of Its
power." [The Crown of Life, p. 124].
Note that Kal or Time is also one of the sons, "Time" being a part of the
whole that only causes difficulties when separated from the rest.
Thus the fall of Kal and the whole lower creation are implicit in this first
creative act of Sat Purush.
"When Sat Purush uttered the third Shabda, a son named Gyan was born." (GYAN
Knowledge in the highest sense.)
When the fourth Shabda was made, the son named Vivek was created.
When Sat Purush uttered the fifth Shabda, Kal Niranjan was incarnated.
He is created from the most glorious part of the body of Sat Purush -that is
why he troubles the soul.
(Note that Kal or Time is also one of the sons, "Time" being a part of the
whole that only causes difficulties when separated from the rest. Thus the
fall of Kal and the whole lower creation are implicit in this first creative
act of Sat Purush.)
(etc.)
In the second chapter, "The Fall of Kal, THE DEVOTION OF NIRANJAN AND HIS
ACQUISITION OF MANSAROVAR AND THE VOID".
(much shortened)
"In this way many days passed and after that this happened: Standing on one
foot he {Dharam Rai}did the devotion of Sat Purush for seventy yugas and
pleased Him.
[SEVENTY YUGAS: Yugas vary in length, the shortest being about four hundred
thousand years.]
When Sat Purush seen this, he was pleased. He asked Dharam Rai (Kal) "Why
have you done this devotion?"
Dharam Rai said, "Please give me some place where I can live."
Then he was ordered by Sat Purush, "0 Son, go to Mansarovar."
Then Dharam Rai felt much happiness in his heart and went to Mansarovar.
[(MANSAROVAR: The lake of Nectar, also called Amritsar, located in Daswan
Dwar, one of the two intermediary planes between Sat Lok and the three
worlds of Kal's creation.
The poem does not explicitly describe the creation of these intermediary
planes, although it may be implicit in what is already said.
In any case, they exist and they are not treated by Kal.
Mansarovar would be at the farthest reach of the universe as it exists at
this point: thus Kal is exhibiting his strong desire to remove himself from
the influence and control of Sat Purush. His fall, in other words, has
already begun.]
When he got to Mansarovar he again did devotion for seventy yugas more.
Sat Purush sent Sahaj to ask why.
"0" Sahaj, go to Dharam Rai and ask him why he has remembered Me this time.
He has done a very hard practice, so I give him the place where he lives.''
(So in a moment he was given the ownership of the three worlds.)
Sahaj goes to Niranjan and asks him why he is doing this devotion again.
Niranjan responds "I don't like this small place. Please give me a big
kingdom. In my heart I have felt such love for Him! He should bless me with
a big place. He should either give me the world of the gods, or else a
separate world."
After Sahaj tells Sat Purush this, Sat Purush responds "I have given him the
three worlds, now go and tell him to develop the Void plane. 0 Sahaj, tell
him to make his creation there."
[THE VOID PLANE: The three worlds in their pre-existent state.]
After Dharam Rai (Niranjan) hears this, he says "Listen, dear Sahaj, how do
I create the universe? The Gracious Lord has given me this Kingdom, but I
don't know the way to develop it! I know nothing about the
Inconceivable!-please shower grace on me and tell me Its secret; Please
convey my request to Sat Purush, 0 my brother, I sacrifice myself on you:
How do I create nine universes, as I have been ordered by Him? 0 my God!
Give me what I need to create the universe."
So Sahaj returned to Sat Lok and tells Sat Purush what he had said.
Sat Purush tells him to tell Dharam Rai "All that is needed for creation are
within Kurma; taking them from him, Dharam Rai should do his work. He should
go to him and, bowing his head, should ask him for what he needs."
Niranjan goes to Kurma with happiness in his heart and pride in his mind.
"He stood before Kurma, but didn't greet him or salute him. Swollen with
pride, Kal saw that Kurma was very patient and mighty.
The body of Kurma was twelve units and the mighty Dharam Rai's body was six
units.
Dharam Rai walked around Kurma in anger, considering how to get the
materials of creation from him.
Kal attacked the heads of Kurma with his nails, and breaking his stomach,
air came out.
From the three heads of Kurma the dynasty of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh came
out.
Five elements came out, including the sky with the moon, sun and stars; they
all came out of him.
Matsya, Shesh Nag, Varah, and the pillars to support the earth came out, and
in this way the creation of earth started.
When Kal pulled the head of Kurma, sweat came out.
When that drop of sweat spread, the earth started floating on it.
As the cream lives on milk, in the same way the earth rested on water;
The earth is supported on the teeth of Varah and in the physical earth
furious winds blow.
Recognize the sky as an egg in which consider the existence of the earth.
From the stomach of Kurma, his son Kurma was born-on whom Shesh Nag and
Varah were erected.
Recognize the head of Shesh Nag as the earth, below whom the son Kurma
resides.
The created son of Kurma is in the egg, while the original Kurma lives
separately in Sat Lok, where he meditates on Sat Purush as before."
[ Kal does not even consider, apparently, doing what he was told to bow down
and ask him.
His impatience here and at other places is one of the results of the impact
of Time on Eternity-or the other way around.
If the fall of Kal becomes inevitable at any one moment, this would seem to
be it.
The existence of the lower creation within the first created son of the
Father would imply that its manifestation was planned from the beginning;
but the impinging of Time is ruining it. ]
After getting the tools needed to develop the lower worlds, Dharam Rai
thought, "How do I develop these worlds?
Without the Seed, what do I do with the heavenly world, the mortal world,
and the world below?
With what do I think? How do I make the body?"
Determined to get life for the worlds, and began remembering Sat Purush, he
did devotion for sixty-four yugas-standing on one foot.
So Sat Purush again sent Sajah to ask why.
Sajah asks me why and Dharam Rai said, "Give me some place where I can
dwell."
Sajah tells him that Sat Purush has given him the Kingdom of the Three
Worlds. "Now, without any fear, create the universe."
Dharam Rai tells Sajah to got back to Sat Purush and beg him to give me
"Seed for the field of my creation."
So Sat Purush created a female "who had eight parts in her body."
Then Sat Purush said this: "Daughter, go to Dharam Rai.
Take hold of that which I give you, and meeting with Dharam Rai, create the
universe."
Then Sat Purush gave her the Seed of the jiva, Whose name is Sohang.
[SEED: The essence of Life or the soul, later called Root Seed. This comes
only from Sat Purush. Kal's "creating" is confined to shaping or developing
what proceeds from the Seed into various forms; if he does not have the
Seed, he has nothing to work with and cannot "create."]
[Although the personal pronoun "he" has been used to describe them, the fact
is that all of the entities who are content with Sat Lok and the spiritual
creation are neither male nor female, but both.
Above the causal plane there is no division into sexes.
We have seen that Shesh Nag's original role was a mother-nourisher, and
although the Saints refer to Sat Purush as the Father, they also refer to
Him as the Mother [see Guru Arjan's great hymn, "You are my Father, You are
my Mother . . .").
Sex distinctions only come into being when attention goes downward into the
lower creation.
Kal, as we have seen, has been steadily falling for some time now- moving
irreversibly away from his Father- and Sat Purush's creation of the
prototypical female Adhya (also called Ashtangi or Bhavani).
At this point can probably be understood best as the crystallization of
Kal's feminine aspect outside of himself as a separate being- the first time
in the universe that this has happened.
The fallenness of the lower creation is never more vividly seen than in
this, that it cannot come into being until its "creator" is split into male
and female.]
Upon seeing the woman Sat Purush sent he felt desire and ate her.
[This is the point of no return in the fall of Kal; his fate, and that of
the lower creation, is sealed at this point.
He swallows her in an attempt to reincorporate what had been his own female
nature; but Kal is also Yama or the Death God; and throughout the poem, Kal
"swallowing" or "devouring" someone means that that person has died.
But although Adhya has been swallowed in his second overt act of direct
disobedience, she does not die, and this is an important point, connected
with Sat Purush's curse.]
After this Sahaj took back the plane of Void consciousness from him (Kal)
and Sat Purush cursed him, saying "If you will devour one lakh jivas daily,
one-and-one-quarter lakhs will be developed. "
[In other words, no matter how much Kal or Yama is interested in playing the
role of a Death God, no matter how many created forms in the lower worlds
are swallowed or devoured by Kal (i.e. die) the end result will only be more
life.
Death is ultimately both illusory and self-defeating.
Sant Ajaib Singh has compared the thought here to a farmer sowing seeds:
each seed has come from a plant that is supposedly dead and, as Christ
pointed out, each seed has to die as a seed before it can bring forth fruit
in abundance.
When Kal finishes devouring 100,000 entities, instead of 100,000 dead
bodies, the reality is 125,000 entities.
From Kal's point of view, this is a curse because it frustrates his aim and
insures that the will of the Father will ultimately prevail as a direct
result of his activity.
And Adhya's experience at this point is prototypical: far from dying when
eaten by Kal, she becomes the mother and co-creator of the entire lower
universe.]
{....each seed has to die as a seed before it can bring forth fruit, die
daily?}
Then Sat Purush thought, "How can I finish Kal?
He is very dangerous and will make the souls restless.
I cannot destroy him or stop him; he is my worthless son.
If I withdraw him into myself, I will have to bring everything back.
[A tremendously important passage.
The Father "cannot destroy or stop" Kal because he is His son: worthless,
but still His son and therefore a part of Himself.
"If I withdraw him into myself, I will have to bring everything back,"- the
only way to prevent Kal from being Kal is to pull him back into the Father;
but the manifested universe is a projection of all sixteen sons, and if any
one of them is reabsorbed into the Source, the creation will
disintegrate-which, for better or worse, is not the Father's wish.]
This is my immovable Word: I will remove Kal from here.
He will never be allowed to enter my region! I will keep my word."
[REMOVE KAL FROM HERE: From the upper universe- Daswan Dwar or Mansarovar
upwards. Time, being (when separated from the whole) inherently negative or
against the grain of Eternity, can be banished from the Spiritual creation
but not from creation as a whole; it sinks to the bottom under its own
weight, as it were.]
Sat Purush then sends Jogjit to expel Kal and beat him for what he did.
He is to tell the woman to come out of Kal's belly, to remember the Shadba
and to live in the world below of which Kal is King.
Then Jogjit hit Kal on the forehead and he fell far from Sat Lok.
The woman came out of his stomach, as was afraid of Kal for what he had
done.
Kal told he not to be afraid as they would create the universe together.
The woman asked why he talked to her like this as he was her elder brother.
After he had ate her, she then became his daughter.
She says "Look at me with pure eyes, or you will be committing a sin!
If you look at me with desire you will become a sinner."
He tells her that "All the sins and virtues are born from me, and from me no
one will ask the account."
[KAL is speaking as Dharam Rai, the Lord of Law or Judgment, and he is
absolutely right: what are called "sins" and "virtues" in the lower worlds -
the origin of the Law of Karma - does proceed from him.
He is the Lawgiver, and his Law is so thorough and intricate that no one can
keep it.
As mentioned above ("GOOD AND BAD" there is a higher level of "morality"
taught by the Masters, which relates entirely to return to the Father and is
based on Love, not fear. "If ye love me, keep my commandments."]
He then made her into a physical being and had sex with her. ("With his
nail, he immediately cut the hole of her genital organ, and in that way the
door of creation was formed.")
After this he commands her, using the seed of life to create the universe.
he gives her three sons and commands her never to tell them about himself or
Sat Purush.
[If no one knows of the existence of the Negative Power, then his actions
will be ascribed to the Positive Power, as indeed they often are.
Kal's disappearance is tied up with his injunction two lines below: the most
efficient way for him to prevent the worship of Sat Purush is to preempt it
for himself, by allowing people to think he is Sat Purush.
This is a pivotal point, and one of the main keys to the meaning, not only
of the poem, but of the universe which the poem explains.]
Explaining these things to the goddess, Niranjan became invisible.
He resided in the cave of Void consciousness-who can know this secret?
He has become invisible; now understand your mind as Niranjan.
When one defeats the mind and gets the Knowledge of Sat Purush, Sat Purush
Himself manifests within such a person.
[recognize the "cave" reference?]
[Kal does not usually manifest in the lower worlds except as individual
mind. He can be seen as himself by those who are coming from above, but not
by those who come from below. As far as the individual is concerned, the
Negative Power is his mind and his mind is the Negative Power.]
[KAL TROUBLE THE JIVAS: The mind is the sower, the soul the reaper. This is
the supreme trick of Kal, the essence of the illusion of Maya: the mind
appears to the individual to be its most integral part, but in fact it is
not a part of the individual at all. It is only along for the ride.]
"Niranjan practiced Yoga and started blowing much wind. When he exhaled, out
came the Vedas."
[WIND Not physical wind, but a mental force which brings into manifestation
that which is latent. There is a humorous allusion to the practice of
pranayam, or holding and exhaling the breath forcefully, as is done in some
yoga systems. Kal of course does not exactly have any breath, but this is
the equivalent of it.]
[VEDAS The Vedas, the most holy scriptures of Hinduism, are the
crystallization of the whole idea of religion as an expression of law
(dharma) and hence originated with Dharam Rai.
Their teaching is concerned with getting what one wants, and keeping this or
that god from being angry with us, through various methods of sacrifice or
manipulation of the gods.
It is a great mistake to assume that the Vedas proper are a spiritual
document; they are not.
At a later date under the influence of the Masters of that time, the
writings known as the Upanishads were added to the Vedas as a kind of
spiritual appendix, but that is not what is referred to here.
All Indian Masters from Buddha onward have been very consistent in this:
that the Vedas are to be ignored and transcended.]
He gave her three children. When they were old enough, he told her to have
them churn the ocean.
[CHURN TH E OCEAN: Bhav Sagar, the ocean of this world (as contrasted with
Anurag Sagar, the Ocean of Love) which has not yet come into existence; the
churning of it brings forth the lower creation out of its latency. The
concept is the same as "the deep" and "the waters" in Genesis 1.]
First churning of the Ocean
When each of them churned the Ocean they got three things: Brahma got the
Vedas, Vishnu fire, and Mahesh poison.
[FIRST CHURNING: Each churning brings forth one of the lower planes: the
first one the causal, the second the astral, the third the physical.
The causal plane, closest to the essence of Kal and Adhya's original
"creation," did not require further division of male and female; the lower
planes do.
Each churning brings forth a thicker aspect of the creation-stuff, and the
specific things mentioned are used in determining the form of the creation.
The fourteen jewels, e.g., are the specific implements used in bringing into
being the physical plane.]
Second churning of the Ocean
When they churned this time, they found the three women, which made them
very pleased.
...
All three brothers indulged in lust and thus the gods and demons were born.
The third churning of the ocean
They churned the ocean without any delay and distributed what they got among
themselves. The mine of fourteen jewels came out, which they brought to
their mother. All three brothers were happy; Vishnu took the Nectar and
Mahesh took the Poison.
At this point she orders her children to create the universe.
She created the egg-born, Brahma created the womb-born, Vishnu created the
moisture-born, and Shiva developed the seedborn; Eighty-four lakhs of
species were created, and the earth was made half water, half land.
In the seed-born is one element; the moisture-born has two; The egg-born has
three elements and the womb-born four.
In the human beings are five elements, and the three gunas beautify them.
Then Brahma read the Vedas, and reading them he felt love. .... The Vedas
say, "There is but one Sat Purush, He is Nirankar and doesn't have any form.
Brahma said, "Listen, my mother! Tell me-Who is your husband?
She thought, "How do I make him understand? If I tell him about Niranjan,
how is he going to accept it?
Thinking carefully, she told her son, "Alakh Niranjan doesn't give his
darshan."
----------
At this point I'm going to quit. The story continues, but you get the idea
of how Kal was created.
If you want to read the entire text, it's available on Amazon.com for $179
(paperback).
It's also on line in PDF.
Dennis
"Etznab" wrote in message
I am wondering what is the history for "Kal Niranjan".
The history of the words.
Etznab
Rich,
Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
Dennis,
I found that was all very interesting. Thanks for
sharing it with me.
That book, I have not read it all before. I would
like to get a copy and read it. Do you know of a
good version, or have a link to a good version of
the book?
Some days ago I started reading something
about the Anurag Sagar of Kabir online, but I
would much rather have the book and read it
offline.
Etznab
Number Harmonics
Everything raised here ... Never a problem for me.
And the entire issue has been so thoroughly flogged out on a.r.e. for so
long, I almost wonder how it could still hold any interest for anyone. Rich
Smith's open offer to list ALL plagiarism, for example ... What did we get
to ... 0.5% possible? And that was with Rich being generous??
That's less than the vast majority of religious books... Deepak Chopra,
Baba-Ji, Bhagwan... All their stuff is plagiarized to a greater extent. It
is common in Hindi teachings, and both RS and Sant Mat are extensively
plagiarised from the Parent Faith if Doug's research is accepted.
Comes down to "So what?"
And if someone actually read the UNABRIDGED version of Path of the Masters,
it would be hard for them to stay awake ... It is just SO labourious to
read. Blavatsky makes light hearted jokes in comparison. And let's not
forget the Theosophical Society, with all their borrowed material from the
East.
Or the Bible? 100% plagiarised that one.
The whole notion that people have to "discover" anything in this subject I
find is a dead fish going off in the sun ... It's been done, again and again
and again ... Sri Harold has addressed it, for what the entire subject is
worth, and a huindred people on line have researched it. The sum total of
the research has simply proven how well researched Paul was ...
I am, as they say, over the bleeding hearts who want to weep on the issue.
Let us not forget the simple, uncluttered truth that for a writer it is
actually a LOT easier to rewrite a paragraph than to transcribe it ...
Transcribing is SLOW and cumbersome, and takes a lot more time than just
working out your own version of events. Only a professional writer
understands this, and remember, all this was done well before the days of
computers and cut and paste operations.
It's got the gong from me ... Off the stage!
In ECK
Michael
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:glnte...@news7.newsguy.com...
Rich
is a good point most often overlooked. Paul's time was so filled it seems
antithetical that he would do much but what came through in the moment. The
bottom line for me is that spiritually, no matter the number and details,
what does it prove? Nothing!
P.S. It stands, at the extreme, of 0.7%
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Number Harmonics
I think every writer reads a phrase, and says "Nice" and re-uses it in some
way down the track, but to sit and actually take sections from another book,
and write it again is so deperate a waste of time that no one does it. If
someone was going to plagiarize (Pre-cut and paste era) they performed more
of a rearrangement than a copy.
Somerset Maughan unintentionally plagiarised a story, and did not realise it
until it was pointed out ... One of those absorb in the unconscious things,
that comes out later. I can accept that this happened with Paul ... I can
also accept that he read Path of the Masters and rewrote the book the way he
believed it should have been. (He has major departures from JJ's themes and
conclusions)
I can view "the Far Country" as a writing exercise that got called up when
Paul needed more material.
I can see all these alternatives, but no matter which way I look at things,
I cannot see a perfectly good writer intentionally copying an inferior
writers work.
But whatever... If people need their negatives, who am I to get in the road!
Ciao
Michael
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:glruh...@news2.newsguy.com...
Etznab
<numberharmon...@spam.aapt.net.au> wrote:
> It's a no brainer when common sense is put into the picture, hey?
>
> I think every writer reads a phrase, and says "Nice" and re-uses it in some
> way down the track, but to sit and actually take sections from another book,
> and write it again is so deperate a waste of time that no one does it. If
> someone was going to plagiarize (Pre-cut and paste era) they performed more
> of a rearrangement than a copy.
>
> Somerset Maughan unintentionally plagiarised a story, and did not realise it
> until it was pointed out ... One of those absorb in the unconscious things,
> that comes out later. I can accept that this happened with Paul ... I can
> also accept that he read Path of the Masters and rewrote the book the way he
> believed it should have been. (He has major departures from JJ's themes and
> conclusions)
>
> I can view "the Far Country" as a writing exercise that got called up when
> Paul needed more material.
>
> I can see all these alternatives, but no matter which way I look at things,
> I cannot see a perfectly good writer intentionally copying an inferior
> writers work.
>
> But whatever... If people need their negatives, who am I to get in the road!
>
> Ciao
>
> Michael
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael,
"I think every writer reads a phrase, and says
"Nice" and re-uses it in some way down the track,
but to sit and actually take sections from another
book, and write it again is so deperate a waste of
time that no one does it. If someone was going to
plagiarize (Pre-cut and paste era) they performed
more of a rearrangement than a copy."
In some way? Does every writer attribute those
phrases to 500+ masters in a long line of masters
going back to the beginning of time?
This is different from plagiarism, IMO. Different
because one of those particular masters (R.T.) is
reportedly the "Torchbearer of Eckankar" and the
one who even "takes over" at times and hands off
the "Rod of Power" from one Master to the next.
It seems to me that using phrases in a book to
animate such a high-caliber "Living Master" would
be something more than plagiarism.
What do you call it though? I'm not exactly sure.
Etznab
TianYue
The strawman argument Rich and others try to set up with the
plagiarism issue is that PT's credibility is hinged only on the
plagiarism, and not the whole pattern of lying. The whole truth about
PT hinges on the fact that he lied about his history, his spiritual
lineage, his date of birth, the identity of his real masters, the
source of his writings, his plagiarism, and the degree of his
“abilities,” as well as his predictions that turned out false, and his
various other failings and complete lack of foresight. It all reveals
that Paul Twitchell was no more a Godman than my next door neighbor,
although that is an insult to my honest neighbor.
Doug has erroneously compared such disparate eras that led to the sort
of collaborative borrowing and copying done by monks operating within
the church to the different literary environment of an author writing
in modern times. For every plagiarized book Doug can point to written
in PT's time, there are hundreds that were written by honest writers
whose ethics would not permit them to plagiarize. Comparing the
standards of one era and one specific social milieu to another very
different one is ridiculous and patently self serving. Just a few
hundred years ago it was acceptable to burn people at the stake
without a trial, enslave and persecute minorities, allow only white
propertied men to vote, own women, decapitate critics of monarchs,
imprison without due process, engage in deliberate genocide, rape and
plunder in war, and seize the property of others, all of which are now
considered barbaric. To pretend that similar changes have not occurred
in the world of literature is absurd. To illustrate, Julian Johnson
credited his own sources of the excerpts he used in his writings, and
his books were written in the 1930s, three decades before PT was
plagiarizing his material. Doug is more than stretching the facts, as
is his bent.
As to the percentage plagiarized, the truth is:
1) No one has independently verified Rich's estimations of the amount
of PTs plagiarism. No independent, unbiased body or tribunal has
undertaken the project of disclosing all of the plagiarism. Rich's
numbers are likely incorrect.
2) It isn’t true that dozens of people have searched exhaustively for
additional plagiary. To do this is very time consuming, and the vast
majority of people outside the cult acknowledge that the large amount
of examples already disclosed are sufficient to conclude PT was a
rampant plagiarizer. The only people who find the evidence
insufficient are the hard-core followers, and it is generally accepted
that plagiary by PT, even if every single word he ever wrote were
found to be plagiarized, would not be enough to awaken them from their
denials. They could care less. So no one has been diligently working
to find more plagiary. It’s pointless, because the case has already
been sufficiently made as far as reasonable people are concerned. But
the occasional stumbling across additional plagiary demonstrates that
it is likely much more could be found, and I’m certain there is far
more that he plagiarized. Rich cannot claim with credibility that all
the plagiary has been discovered. No one knows that. What we do know
is that it is very likely there could be more.
3) The degree of plagiarism does not excuse the plagiarism. It is as
if PT's apologists think that arguing that the lies were only a
percentage of PT's overall statements somehow exonerates him from the
charge of lying. In most cases, almost ANY unethical act by ANY person
is only a percentage of their overall acts. Thus, the percentage of
wrongdoing is not a reasonable excuse. PT plagiarized from a wide
number of authors, and it wasn't just a paragraph or two, but was
actually rampant and sweeping. The percentage argument is a deceptive
way to minimize the impact. It's voodoo math, because it's not the
overall percentage that matters, but rather the sheer number of
paragraphs and authors plagiarized, regardless of how many other
paragraphs he did not plagiarize. This is tantamount to excusing a
wrongdoing because of all the times the offender could have engaged in
wrongdoing, but refrained. So, for example, the serial rapist could
point to the hundreds of occasions of consensual sex to exonerate
himself. But we all know this isn't the way this works. PT was a
serial plagiarist. Just because he didn't plagiarize everything he
wrote doesn't let him off the hook. This is a rather childish claim.
One might well ask Rich to declare what percentage of plagiary he
thinks is acceptable for any writer. 10%? 20%? Maybe 50%? Or would
Rich accept ANY amount of plagiarism found in eckankar writings? I
think we all know his thinking on this. Would Doug and Rich finally
admit PT is a fraud if the plagiary were 50%? Heh, heh. Of course they
wouldn’t. So the issue of the percentage of plagiary is just a
diversion. It’s a red herring.
4) The excuse that Paul had to move quickly in getting out the
teachings, which made plagiarism necessary, is absurd. Paul would have
better served his presumed goals by writing one good, well written
book based on his original writing and real experiences, if he in fact
had any. In spiritual writing, quality is far more important than
quantity. For example, the Daodejing Daoist classic is very short, yet
it is translated in more languages than any other book with the
exception of the Christian Bible.
5) Paul Twitchell’s plagiary and concocted fictitious history is
consistent with the findings of cult researchers that many cult
leaders are sociopaths. Megalomania and sociopathic behavior includes
the tendency to indulge in wholesale lying, even when the lies are
completely transparent. This is sometimes termed “crazy lying,”
because anyone free of the cult’s influence can easily see through the
ruse. When followers are faced with the lying and other sociopathic
behavior, they often are unable to break out of the cult-induced
thought reform, and they just can’t face the truth, so they begin to
rationalize their leader’s behavior, often going to extreme lengths to
absolve their leader. They often can’t view with sufficient
objectivity how ridiculous the rationalizing appears to those free of
the group’s control, so they carry on and on, with peculiar mental
gymnastics to make their leader’s shenanigans seem innocuous, to the
surprise and dismay of nearly everyone outside the group.
Tianyue
Etznab
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"4) The excuse that Paul had to move quickly in
getting out the teachings, which made plagiarism
necessary, is absurd. Paul would have better
served his presumed goals by writing one good,
well written book based on his original writing and
real experiences, if he in fact had any. In spiritual
writing, quality is far more important than quantity.
For example, the Daodejing Daoist classic is very
short, yet it is translated in more languages than
any other book with the exception of the Christian
Bible."
A.R.E.,
In the interest of history, citing source material
would allow people to research the history & the
development of organized religious teachings.
On the other hand, to obscure sources and /or
attribute mythical, legendary, fictional & pseudo
characters can make it difficult for a historian to
verify the origin of a spiritual teaching and how it
might have evolved over time.
Concerning plagiarism & estimates by people
who did not read the plagiarized books, or who
might be biased in favor of the plagiarist, theirs
is not the last word & they are not the authority
on the subject, in my opinion.
Going back to the topic of source material, I
wonder if a case can be made for imagination
being a source for Eckankar teachings, in part
at least?
For example, I don't know for sure whether
Rebazar Tarzs or Sudar Singh were invented
pseudo, fictional, legendary, and /or mythical
characters. If, however, actual & true history
was obscured by those elements, and it was
done so knowingly by the author, a question
might come to mind as to why the break from
actual recorded history to imaginary history?
My own suspicions about source material for
Eckankar - as Paul Twitchell found it - is that it
was legendary, mythical, fictional and fabulous
long before he encountered it as written history
and spoken discourse. So much of it, that is.
I also tend to suspect that Paul Twitchell tried
to move the "source" for "Eckankar" away from
recorded history & into the realm of imagination
so that a person could rediscover the truth(s) be-
hind the outer writings and recorded history that
existed as so many religions for so many years
and to depart from all the stereotypes gathered
along the way. It could be done through personal
experience via imagination. This is suspicion and
my guess at this time.
Paul was a "rascal" in some ways, I believe,
but I also get the impression he valued creative
imagination & the power of personal experience.
However, not everything "imaginary" has a "con-
crete" & physically tangible object. It does have
objects (imagination) in an imaginary world!
I've contemplated the history of Eckankar a long
time. Looked at many different ways the teachings
and the path were described. Perhaps one of the
better solutions to the enigma can be summed up
by the sentence: "'ECK is not like anything you've
ever heard of before." [see below for context]
***************************************************
"[....] Paul referred to Eckankar in many ways.
At various times he called it a path, a mood, or
a way of life. At other times he pointed out what
ECK is not or stated that nothing could be said to
describe It. But when corporate papers are being
filed, the state officials want information about the
organization. 'ECK is not like anything you've ever
heard of before' is not considered an acceptable
answer. So, in addition to Paul's mission to bring
out the teachings of ECK and somehow establish
them in the world, he was faced with the dilemma
of how to define Eckankar for legal purposes. [....]"
[Based on: Harold Klemp - See: Paul Defines Eckankar]
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
Etznab
TianYue
> On Jan 29, 8:30 pm, TianYue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<large amount of text snipped to make this easier to read.
You make some good points Etznab, but one can't excuse lies and
plagiary based on a suspicion that the source material was based on
ancient fictions. Lies are still lies. Maybe the founders of
Radhasoami, long ago, made it all up as well, but that is a separate
issue, and it isn't exactly proven. Engaging in lies because of a
suspicion that someone else engaged in lies doesn't excuse the lying.
Paul Twitchell made the choice to found his group on plagiarizing the
work of other authors, and he lied about his real sources and
teachers, concocting a line of masters and a false personal history to
hide the real truth. As one of his students, that truth was hidden
from me. He lied to me. He used his followers to accomplish his aims,
and such lies usually only serve one purpose, and that purpose is
usually a selfish one. Lying about spiritual accomplishments serves
only the liar. You may not mind being used by someone's lies, but most
people don't want to serve as pawns of another persons self serving
agenda.
As to your notion that PT wanted to break through stereotypes, and
thus hid his sources to achieve that for his followers:
That's an interesting rationalization of Paul's motives for the lies
and plagiarism, but it makes little sense to move away from the real
"stereotypical" sources while creating fictional stereotypical sources
if the purpose was to free the student from old stereotypes. And if
he wanted to remove unneeded stereotypical encumbrances in order to
free his students to rediscover truths, lying to them by concocting
even more stereotypical fictions, such as a fictitious line of masters
and fabricated histories, is diametrically counter to that presumed
goal. He didn't free anyone of those stereotypes, he simply switched
one set of stereotypes for another, but kept the main body of
stereotypical Radhasoami teachings intact. Obviously, his intent was
not to remove stereotypes, but rather to use sterotypes to persuade
and manipulate.
And Paul supplied the students with the same descriptions of the
teachings and of the planes from Johnson's "A Great Master in India"
despite the fact that not all people have the same experience of the
inner planes. If he wanted to free people from old stereotypes,
perhaps he should have allowed the student to have his own experience
without pre-suggesting what those planes should look like by copying
them from a Radhasoami book.
As to these comments you made, and the Klemp comment you quoted,
alluding to the notion that Eckankar defies definition, which is
apparently offered as yet another way to excuse the various
plagiarisms and lack of disclosure of the real sources:
"Perhaps one of the better solutions to the enigma can be summed up by
the sentence "'ECK is not like anything you've ever heard of
before." [see below for context]
"[....] Paul referred to Eckankar in many ways. At various times he
called it a path, a mood, or a way of life. At other times he pointed
out what ECK is not or stated that nothing could be said to describe
It. "
[Based on: Harold Klemp - See: Paul Defines Eckankar]
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
What Harold is referring to is Paul's older definition of Eckankar
before Harold redefined it. The irony about this statement that "Eck
is not like anything you've heard before" is that this is another
statement straight out of Radhasoami teachings and Julian Johnson's
books. It oddly seems as if a Radhasoami teaching is inadvertently
being put in PT's mouth to rationalize PT's plagiary of Radhasoami.
And yet it is another copied premise from Radhasoami!
Paul Twitchell wrote:
"Eckankar is not a yoga, religion, philosophy, metaphysical system, or
an occult science."
-from an old Eckankar handout
"Eckankar is not a religion, philosphy, nor occult system..."
Compiled Writings, p. 6
This definition was the common, standard definition throughout the
literature in Paul's early literature. Let's compare this classic
Paul Twitchell statement (with which every eckist from that period was
well acquainted) with Julian Johnson's similar statements:
"This holy path is not a theory. It is not a system of beliefs or
dogmas. It is not even a religion, although it embraces all of the
values of religion."
-With a Great Master in India, p. 183
"It must be said here, as well in the heart of this book, that this is
not another phase of Hindu philosophy. Neither is it Vedatism. It is
none of the schools and cults of India. This is not a cult, nor is it
even a religion, in the historic sense of that term."
-The Path of the Masters, pgs. 7, 8
As to your characterizing PT lovingly as a "rascal," this seems to be
an attempt to justify his lies by romanticizing his behavior, which is
something Doug and others have been trying to do for a long time. It
is the intentional stretching of the context to be a scenario in which
a mischievous, prankish Godman creatively used the writings of others
to create a path, rather than a fraud who lied his way into a
mastership position. It is another rationalization that doesn't
reflect what really happened.
Tianyue
Ken
>
> As to your characterizing PT lovingly as a "rascal," this
> seems to be
> an attempt to justify his lies by romanticizing his
> behavior, which is
> something Doug and others have been trying to do for a long
> time. It
> is the intentional stretching of the context to be a
> scenario in which
> a mischievous, prankish Godman creatively used the writings
> of others
> to create a path, rather than a fraud who lied his way into a
> mastership position. It is another rationalization that
> doesn't
> reflect what really happened.
That you pretend to be unbiased is the real fraud here.
--
Ken
Etznab
> On Jan 24, 9:20 am, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am wondering what is the history for
> > "Kal Niranjan".
>
> >http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
>
> >http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alakh_Niranjan
>
> >http://www.sikhpoint.com/religion/philosophyofsikhism/Banis/japuji/Ra...
>
> >http://www.spiritualawakeningradio.com/leavematrix.html
>
> >http://www.aors-dbbs.org/enter/books/anurag_sagar_part.htm
>
> >http://www.aors-dbbs.org/enter/books/anurag-sagar1/asp1p001.htm
>
> > Etznab
>
> A lot of work. Thanks, eTz. Sri Twitchell seemed to go with combining
> linguistic origins and I will go with the word Kal as being of Semitic
> (Arabic, Ethiopian, Lebanese, Syrian?, Mesopotamian?) origin. How are
> you coming with S-U-G-M-A-D ?
>
> Here are two links to a scholar, Ernest Klein, whom I deeply respect.
> When more Islamic scholars are translated we are sure to find out even
> more. Timbuktu was a leading source for manuscripts at one time in our
> world history which had more value than gold does today (Before the
> Mayflower by Bennett). Sri Harold's biographies are written between
> the lines of "Z" and I contemplate what his day-to-day thoughts must
> have been when in Texas and California seeing how after the Blue
> Carnation was passed to him by Sri Gross, he stood by the door after
> everyone left much like he must have when locking up to go home after
> a day of work in Menlo Park's ECKANKAR Offices. Thinking, whispering,
> or even writing "Z" seems to fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle
> in Sri Harold's day to day silence of observation.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/EKleinEty-Enghttp://tinyurl.com/EKleinEty-Heb
>
> JR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JR,
I haven't found the word "Sugmad" anyplace else
but in Eckankar literature. Have you?
A word I found that "appears similar" is:
sarmad - "The sound of the abstract is called Anahad
in the Vedas, meaning umlimited sound. The Sufis name
it Sarmad, which suggests the idea of intoxication"
http://wahiduddin.net/mv2/II/II_8.htm
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tianyue,
Thanks for the well-written feedback.
It was a "stretch" of the imagination, some of what
I wrote. Was it 100 percent true or not? I really can't
say. I had to clarify some things by stating they were
suspicions and a guess.
Imagination is a word I want to use for a focal point,
and yet, imagination can go "both ways". Meaning, the
results are not always good. However, I want to make
this point.
So much of the world history I have seen is colored
by people imagining it different from what it was. And
when I look at religious history that resembles mythol-
ogy, it gets even more bizarre.
I admit it can be frustratiing to see history described
like a fairy tale. Even more frustrating to see the same
kinds of fairy tales turning up over and over again.
How different is the "Godman" paragigm from the
classical saviour myth? Eckankar uses "Mahanta" &
other paths use it too. Some paths use "Mahatma".
There are sections in Julian Johnson's The Path OF
The Masters that talk about the "Godman". Similiarly,
Eckankar books gives descriptions for the "Master" &
attribute other titles, however a number of paragraphs
read nearly identical.
I think what happened here was that a teaching had
struck upon the imaginations of an audience and that
what went in one ear was not the same as what came
out the other. Whatever the story long ago, history is
handed down from people to people until eventually, it
seems in certain cases, people are handing down the
"hand-me-down" history of others and haven't a clue
how much of it is true. This is the most frustrating part
of historical research, IMO. To buy book after book &
see the same basic history, legends and myths written
by so many people, in so many ways, under so many
titles and for so many prices. Sooner or later one might
get the impression that mostly nobody knows anything
about ancient history except the plagiarism of what was
the most popular versions of it over and over again and
down through time. Imagination is one constant here &
I wonder (early on, at least) if Paul Twitchell wanted to
show this.
The "Godman" paradigm is not new, IMO. And one
has also to wonder why always a man! (Hey, but that
is just like Christianity, Islam & Judaism, etc., isn't it?)
I thought you made good points, too, Tianyue. And
I'm not saying I believe mine were any more true.
There was a section further down on the Eckankar
page from where I gave a quote recently. This other
section leads me to believe Paul Twitchell was / is not
the only person behind Eckankar.
"In the early days Paul was totally against making
Eckankar a nonprofit organization. If we can't take
care of ourselves, he said, how can we serve any-
body else?
"Eventually the hard realities of the constricting
tax codes, coupled with the possibility that he might
translate before the next Living ECK Master was
named, brought Paul to a difficult decision. If he
didn't bend from his original opinions, if he didn't
carry out the will of the ECK and do whatever it took
to insure the survival of the teachings, they wouldn't
survive. After considering all these factors, Paul
realized he had to provide the legal stability that would
permit the teachings to continue. And so Eckankar
became a nonprofit organization, and a board of
trustees was appointed to deal with the day-to-day
management."
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
That was from the section "Paul Defines Eckankar"
and it picks up from where my earlier quote left off.
What I found most astonishing from that section was:
"... coupled with the possibility that he might translate
before the next Living ECK Master was named ...."
that, along with the rest of the paragraph, convinces me
it was / is more than just one "man" running Eckankar. It
is something I wanted to point out, too, in my earlier post.
That, coupled with the topic of "imagination".
BTW, I believe the spring issue of Parabola magazine
will have "Imagination" for a theme. And if it's not already
out, it should be coming along pretty soon. I am looking
forward to reading about the history of that topic. Actually,
it looks like the publication date is today. February 1st.
http://parabola.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=162
Etznab
TianYue
Shariat (not sharyat) is in the Path of the Masters glossary. It means
Islamic code of life, so I wonder if Shariat ki Sugmad is Islamic?
Tianyue
TianYue
> On Feb 1, 9:48 pm, TianYue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Etznab
>
> > Shariat (not sharyat) is in the Path of the Masters glossary. It means
> > Islamic code of life, so I wonder if Shariat ki Sugmad is Islamic?
>
> > Tianyue
>
>
> His words were filled with such eloquence and wisdom, as though an
> ocean abided inside him, and the ocean filled with eloquent pearls.
> The light that shone from every pearl became a criterion of right and
> wrong. -Rumi, "Mathnawi" in "The Bounty of Allah."
> Translated by Aneela Khalid Arshed. Copyright 1999. All rights
> reserved. Crossroad Publishing Company, New York.
Hmmm. Your meaning is vague, but I doubt that PT put together
different languages to form a phrase. He was more apt to have found
this as a complete phrase already in use, as was his usual M.O.
Dennis
"JR" <JohnR...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f864e8b5-3ef4-4f5d...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
My guess is
you just don't want this thread to die, because you want to believe
you are Kal and not Soul?
John, are we not 'both'.
Without Kal, time and space would be a continuum and the lower worlds could
not exist. Without the lower worlds, "we" could not exist.
Without "we", Soul could not experience the school of the physical universe
and would never have become what it now is.
We are Soul, and we re Kal, and we are Sugmad.
Jonathan Livingston Seagull wrote "the gull that flies highest, see's
farthest."
We, being 'part' of the all, can know the earth, and we being 'all' of the
part, can see the highest heaven; all just by changing our awareness of
"what" we are..
We are but drops of water in the endless ocean of God.
Sugmad and Kal give the water depth and allows us to be aware of its
qualities.
Soul allows us to become part of it; if we choose.
All this, just by putting the Mind to sleep and staying awake.
Etznab
> "JR" <JohnRCl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dennis,
I, for one, enjoyed reading that post. I thought
you said it well.
Etznab
mlj4l...@gmail.com
In some sources, Kal Niranjan becomes Par Brahm, then Brahm, then Jyot Niranjan, in other sources, they are all separate entities, or he is either Brahm or Jyot Niranjan.
Etznab
Quoting ...
"I'm sure there are some that would be surprised although I imagine that most
would react the same as the majority have in the past. -> 'Yes, I know there
is a small amount of plagiarism but it doesn't impact my spiritual growth.'
Those of us who followed this through my challenge to David Lane et al here
and on other groups, haven't seen anything new documented quotes in many
years. While I'm sure there may be tidbits more here and there, for the most
part I'd say it a done deal since dozens of people have been researching it
starting over thirty years ago."
So that was an old, old post and vastly out of context when compared to the current findings.
Much more documentation has come to the fore and increasing that "small amount" greatly.
The only "done deal" are those a.r.e. members who years ago suggested I "move on". It was they who left a.r.e. and I who stayed. Stayed to do some real research and document many more finds of plagiarism - ones not mentioned by David Lane, Doug Marman and others.
When the documentary finally comes out, it will have been much easier for researchers to list the plagiarisms since they have been (by now) repeatedly illustrated online. The information is just waiting to be gathered up and presented to a larger audience. It will make a.r.e. look like a flea market.
Kinpa
Exactly who is going to fund this documentary and make it having an opinion that agrees with yours? Will you fund it? If not then whom? While sean loves to insist that money isn't everything, even he cannot deny that it IS an important thing, because without it, documentaries do NOT get made. Supposing that anyone actually does make one, it would be quite foolish to include such assumptive jumps within it, as that alone would ruin any imagined degree of credibility for it, not to mention truth, because of the simple fact, that plagiarizm does NOT prove ANYTHING, about ANY ECK Master, neither for, nor against them...it does not even have the ability to address that question being that these are nothing more than assumptions, even fantasies,that have not one single piece of direct evidence to support them, NOTHING!
By the way, ARE has looked like a flea-market for at least a decade now, or have you failed to notice that no one other than you and sean come here?? The audience has left, people just do not care, those that agree with you, agreeand nothing will ever convince them of anything different, this is how attachments are...those that are members choose to see it differently, and you can never change that either....personally i find it hilarious that you still persist in it, but have never shown ANY direct factual evidence for anything other than plagiarizm....Paul Twitchell has left earth, so plagiarizm is a moot issue at this point. There is simply nowhere else for you to drive this particular train, everyone stopped watching it.
But no one can say that you don't have the right to waste your own time, so by all means, DO! You ARE still kicking a DEAD horse however, and nothing is ever going to change that. You haven't changed that "small amount" as greatly as you imagine you have. The idea that some unknown will invest the money to make a documentary is one you can certainly have and expect, but don't be overly surprised if it doesn't pan out the way you imagine it will. So why do you make such an egotistical statement like you did above? That you are more valid because you stayed doing "real research" and those that told you to move on left? Do you seriously imagine that you have uncovered something new? You have not. It's the same story that it was 15 years ago. LOL, but by all means, continue, it IS all your own time being spent, but the audience is not nearly as large as you assume it to be...