"Sudar Singh's Search for Truth"
KaraHolly
"One of the ECK Masters who worked here before Paul Twitchell brought out the
ECK message in 1965 was Sudar Singh."
"Sudar Singh lived in India around the turn of the century. He was the son of
a rich man; he could have taken his inheritance and lived very well for the
rest of his life, but instead he wanted to know truth. One day he dressed
himself in rags, though they were of a good quality of cloth--it's hard to be
humble when you can afford better--and started out on the road to find truth.
He had heard about this Rebazar Tarzs, a teacher of some ancient wisdom who
lived up in the Himalayan Mountains, and decided to make contact with him.
Through inquires, he was directed to one of Rebazar Tarz's students who
happened to be an important government official, so he set off down the dusty
road to find him. Arriving at the man's home he was invited in and spent the
next week asking question after question of his host."
"The servant assigned to wait on Sudar Singh during his stay happened to be
Rebazar Tarzs in disguise, who was observing the seeker very carefully as he
brought him food and drink. Sudar Singh looked into the teachings of ECK, and
after about a week he concluded that there was nothing in the teachings of
ECKANKAR for him. Very sadly, he left. Rebazar Tarzs merely stood by to see in
what direction he would go, giving him perfect freedom, perfect choice."
"A year later, after looking into a number of other religious teachings and
getting nowhere, Sudar Singh had come to the end of his rope. He wondered if
there was anything left to live for. One day wandering up in the foothills of
the Himalayas, hungry and tired, he fell into a light sleep. He awoke
suddenly, and there stood Rebazar Tarzs with a pitcher of milk to give him some
nourishment. This time Sudar Singh recognized him, and from that point he
began earnestly to make his own steps on the path to God."
From "How To Find God" pg 43, by Harold Klemp,
Copyright (c) 1988 ECKANKAR. All rights reserved.
For information about Eckankar:
http://www.eckankar.org
or Phone 1(800) LOVE GOD
SAMOREZ
In article <19980211212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kara...@aol.com
(KaraHolly) writes:
>"One of the Masters who worked here before Paul Twitchell brought out
>the Light & Sound message in 1965 was Kirpal Singh."
See how easy it is to tell the truth? What's the big deal?
Sam
Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine
Rich
SAMOREZ wrote:
>
> In article <19980211212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, SAMOREZ wrote:
>
> In article <19980211212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kara...@aol.com
> (KaraHolly) writes:
>
> >"One of the Masters who worked here before Paul Twitchell brought out
> >the Light & Sound message in 1965 was Kirpal Singh."
> See how easy it is to tell the truth? What's the big deal?
Seems like it's a big deal to you Sam because it conflicts with *your*
truth. While I did meet Paul and Kirpal Singh, I never had an
opportunity to meet Sudar Singh, but others besides Paul did.
Repost:
> For anyone interested in verifying the existence of Sudar Singh,
> contact:
>
> Manoranjan Bhattacharya,
> Madhab Niwas, P.O. Nona Chandan Pukur,
> Dist. 24 Parganas,
> W.Bengal, India
>
> Please keep in mind that he is 84 years old. This information has been
> provided by the ECKists mentioned by Sri Harold. I would be happy to
> pass to them on any thoughtful queries.
>
> Mr. Bhattacharya has indicated that Sudar Singh was alive in 1938. He
> did not meet him after that for he did not visit Allahabad afterwards
> until the 60's. He does not know when Sudar Singh died.
>
> Mr. Bhattacharya was not interested in Sudar Singh's teachings.
>
> 'Sudar Singh' is an extremely uncommon name in India. It is not a
> simplified version of 'Sudarshan', which is more usual. There was
> another saint at that time in North India called 'Sundar Singh'. During
> the taped interview with Mr. Bhattacharya, he never wavered about the
> name. On the other hand 'Singh' is one of the most common surnames in
> India.
>
> Mr. Bhattacharya is totally unaware of Paul Twitchell, or Eckankar for
> that matter. However, he did assert that there were foreigners staying
> at the ashram at the time he sought shelter.
>
> The ECKists did get a list of names from Mr. Bhattacharya of others who
> might still be alive who knew Sudar Singh. However, after such a long
> time, it is difficult to trace people since many have passed on.
>
> Sorry to remove a favorite critical whacking stick.
>
> Offered humbly in HU
>
> Mark Alexander
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan4litsnd
SAM wrote:
>In article <19980211212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kara...@aol.com
(KaraHolly) writes:
>>"One of the Masters who worked here before Paul Twitchell brought out
>>the Light & Sound message in 1965 was Kirpal Singh."
>See how easy it is to tell the truth? What's the big deal?
JAN:
Samarama, (AND Dougieness too), Harold spelled that S U D A R (not Kirpal) for
good reason. That's who it was and that is the Master he is telling us about.
Our own Variagi ECK Master, not a Master of another lineage.
(Jan sees Lightbulb!, hears Bell ring!)
...could it be possible, what the LEM says, writes in his books, is exactly
what he means?
Jan
Ram3Ram
Of course it's possible Klemp says what he means. We all "say what we mean"
(to the best of our ability) anytime we say anything.
Whether we tell the truth or not is another story.
But Klemp and many eckists apparantly have a much more sophisticated definition
of "truth" than the average Joe. (Or perhaps no definition at all.)
Joe O
Ram3Ram
>> Mr. Bhattacharya has indicated that Sudar Singh was alive in 1938. He
>> did not meet him after that for he did not visit Allahabad afterwards
>> until the 60's. He does not know when Sudar Singh died.
>>
>> Mr. Bhattacharya was not interested in Sudar Singh's teachings.
>>
>> 'Sudar Singh' is an extremely uncommon name in India. It is not a
>> simplified version of 'Sudarshan', which is more usual. There was
>> another saint at that time in North India called 'Sundar Singh'. During
>> the taped interview with Mr. Bhattacharya, he never wavered about the
>> name. On the other hand 'Singh' is one of the most common surnames in
>> India.
>>
>> Mr. Bhattacharya is totally unaware of Paul Twitchell, or Eckankar for
>> that matter. However, he did assert that there were foreigners staying
>> at the ashram at the time he sought shelter.
>>
>> The ECKists did get a list of names from Mr. Bhattacharya of others who
>> might still be alive who knew Sudar Singh. However, after such a long
>> time, it is difficult to trace people since many have passed on.
>>
>> Sorry to remove a favorite critical whacking stick.
>>
>> Offered humbly in HU
>>
>> Mark Alexander
>
Let's grant that there was someone in Allahabad called "Sudar Singh" and that
he had some Western students. The key points remain:
Any documentation at all that this Sudar Singh taught something even remotely
akin to what Paul taught? That he was referred to as the lem? Bhattacharya
apparently can't provide any info.
Any documentation that Twitchell met with this Sudar Singh? (And didn't just
hear about him, using the name for his own purposes?) Mr. Bhattacharya admits
to never hearing of Twitchell.
Any extant writing exist by Sudar Singh? Photographs of the man? Where are
his students now?
All we (might) have is that someone in India knew someone named Sudar.
Provide something more than junk research to make the whacking stop.
Joe O
Rich
Ram3Ram wrote:
> Let's grant that there was someone in Allahabad called "Sudar Singh" and that
> he had some Western students. The key points remain:
>
> Any documentation at all that this Sudar Singh taught something even remotely
> akin to what Paul taught? That he was referred to as the lem?
Any documentation that he taught something entirely different?? That he
was not a LEM? You see, it fails both ways.
> Any documentation that Twitchell met with this Sudar Singh?
> Any extant writing exist by Sudar Singh? Photographs of the man?
Yes, you see the problem. They are all long dead and it is likely that
we will never have any proof that he was not the master who Paul met and
studied under. :-D
>Where are his students now?
Perhaps Eckists all over the world.....
> Provide something more than junk research to make the whacking stop.
Now Joe, calling it junk research is a bit foolish on your part. It
doesn't appear to be a claim to research at all. It's just a few facts
which is more that your unsupported, assumptive opinion that this man
did not teach Light and Sound teachings as taught by Eckankar.
Whack as you will. The key point for me is what I have learned thru my
personal experiences with Eck masters, not whether a spiritual teacher
long dead taught the same things.
If it is important to you, *you* do the research and prove that this man
was not Paul's teacher. I'm open to more information but not to
unsupported whacking.
SAMOREZ
In article <19980212223...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, jan4l...@aol.com
(Jan4litsnd) writes:
>...could it be possible, what the LEM says, writes in his books, is
>exactly what he means?
No, because he would have to know what he mean't in order to say it....exactly.
arel...@mindspring.com
Rich, the only whacking I see going on around here is with you and Rich
Jr..
Lurk
Ram3Ram
Rich wrote:
>Ram3Ram wrote:
>
>> Let's grant that there was someone in Allahabad called "Sudar Singh" and
>that
>> he had some Western students. The key points remain:
>>
>> Any documentation at all that this Sudar Singh taught something even
>remotely
>> akin to what Paul taught? That he was referred to as the lem?
>
>Any documentation that he taught something entirely different?? That he
>was not a LEM? You see, it fails both ways.
JOE WRITES:
No, it just fails YOUR way! You can't use the argument from ignorance to prove
something is true simply because there is no evidence that it ISN'T true!
>> Any documentation that Twitchell met with this Sudar Singh?
>> Any extant writing exist by Sudar Singh? Photographs of the man?
RICH:
>Yes, you see the problem. They are all long dead and it is likely that
>we will never have any proof that he was not the master who Paul met and
>studied under. :-D
JOE:
Gee, and I guess we'll never have any proof about any of eckankar's totally
unsupported claims about it's "line of masters." So we should all simply
believe that Zoogy came from Blatz and Woogy taught Kabir about poetry. What a
persuasive argument.
>
>>Where are his students now?
RICH:
>Perhaps Eckists all over the world.....
JOE:
In the "dream state" right?
If there was ever a convention of cult-leaders, I hope they presented Paul with
an award for this most brilliant ruse. Why do you think we call them dreams?
>
>
>> Provide something more than junk research to make the whacking stop.
>
RICH:
>Now Joe, calling it junk research is a bit foolish on your part. It
>doesn't appear to be a claim to research at all. It's just a few facts
>which is more that your unsupported, assumptive opinion that this man
>did not teach Light and Sound teachings as taught by Eckankar.
JOE:
Sorry, I thought an attempt to gather and provide facts was called "research."
And it was "junk research," because it totally failed to support the
researcher's contentions.
RICH:
>
>Whack as you will. The key point for me is what I have learned thru my
>personal experiences with Eck masters, not whether a spiritual teacher
>long dead taught the same things.
>
>If it is important to you, *you* do the research and prove that this man
>was not Paul's teacher. I'm open to more information but not to
>unsupported whacking.
JOE:
Alright then, here's more information:
Documented proof exists that conclusively proves Twitchell changed the names of
actual teachers he studied under, in later editions of his writings, to the
name "Sudar Singh." (Lane)
If this Sudar was a real person from whom Twitchell studied "eckankar," why the
name change?
Joe O
Rich
Ram3Ram wrote:
> If this Sudar was a real person from whom Twitchell studied "eckankar," why the
> name change?
Darwin Gross:
> Paul
> wrote a book or booklet, and turned it over to his chiropractor,
> Dr Louis Bluth, to edit. I believe it was The Flute of God, the
> very first printing, and Paul had referred to Sudar Singh by name.
> The editor, Bluth, was a former Sikh student himself and thought
> Paul meant Kirpal Singh, so he changed it without even checking
> with Paul. Well, the very next printing, believe me, Kirpal
> Singh was taken out and Sudar Singh’s name put back as in Paul's
> original manuscript.
SAMOREZ
>I'm open to more information but not to
>unsupported whacking.
Yeah, that's Gnat's job.....he's good at whacking <GGG>
Beavis
Ram3Ram
Rich wrote:
>Ram3Ram wrote:
>
>
>> If this Sudar was a real person from whom Twitchell studied "eckankar," why
>the
>> name change?
>
>
>Darwin Gross:
>> Paul
>> wrote a book or booklet, and turned it over to his chiropractor,
>> Dr Louis Bluth, to edit. I believe it was The Flute of God, the
>> very first printing, and Paul had referred to Sudar Singh by name.
>> The editor, Bluth, was a former Sikh student himself and thought
>> Paul meant Kirpal Singh, so he changed it without even checking
>> with Paul. Well, the very next printing, believe me, Kirpal
>> Singh was taken out and Sudar Singh’s name put back as in Paul's
>> original manuscript.
>
>
Joe writes:
I thought Darwin Gross, the black magician, wasn't to be spoken of anymore by
good eckists???
I guess when Paul wrote the original manuscript of the Tiger's Fang and sent it
to Kirpal Singh for his approval, Kirpal told him to take his name out and put
in that of Rebezar Tarzs. Well, Kirpal later denied this fact, because he was
under the influence of Kal, but believe me, in the great eck scheme of things
all went as planned because it was preordained by Yurbel Spagoni that eckankar
should exist in the midst of confusing circumstances so as to separate the true
eckist from the dilettante.
Joe O
GLEN STEVENS
In article <19980215004...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
sam...@aol.com (SAMOREZ) wrote:
> In article <34E3FD...@aloha.net>, Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> writes:
>
> >I'm open to more information but not to
> >unsupported whacking.
>
> Yeah, that's Gnat's job.....he's good at whacking <GGG>
>
> Beavis
And you know this to be true because . . . . ... . . . . .
--
????????????????????????????????
SAMOREZ
>Darwin Gross:
> Paul
> wrote a book or booklet, and turned it over to his
>chiropractor,
> Dr Louis Bluth, to edit. I believe it was The Flute of God,
>the
> very first printing, and Paul had referred to Sudar Singh by name.
>
>The editor, Bluth, was a former Sikh student himself and thought
> Paul meant
>Kirpal Singh, so he changed it without even checking
> with Paul. Well, the
>very next printing, believe me, Kirpal
> Singh was taken out and Sudar
>Singh’s name put back as in Paul's
> original manuscript.
Hey Doug, you know this to be a big, fat lie. Stand up and be counted. Can you?
Sam
KMerrymoon
Sam wrote:
>Hey Doug, you know this to be a big, fat lie. Stand up and be counted. Can
you?
Sam was referring to this post:
>>Darwin Gross:
>>Paul wrote a book or booklet, and turned it over to his
>>chiropractor, Dr Louis Bluth, to edit. I believe it was
>>The Flute of God, the very first printing, and Paul had
>>referred to Sudar Singh by name.
>>
>>The editor, Bluth, was a former Sikh student himself and thought
>> Paul meant Kirpal Singh, so he changed it without even checking
>> with Paul. Well, the very next printing, believe me, Kirpal
>> Singh was taken out and Sudar Singh's name put back as in Paul's
>> original manuscript.
DOUG:
Yes, it's a pretty bad lie. I don't think Dr. Bluth was even studying with Paul
when he first published The Flute of God, because Paul first published that in
1963, if I remember correctly. And it was printed in a magazine, not published
by Dr. Bluth at all.
And what about the Far Country, where the names were changed? And what about
The Tiger's Fang?
From what I know about Paul, my guess is that he first wrote these early books,
as a gift to Kirpal, when he was studying with him, and he put Kirpal's name in
these pieces in hopes that Kirpal would use them. Paul was looking for an
outlet for his writing. At least, that's the best picture I can get about Paul.
When Kirpal made it clear he would have nothing to do with Paul's writings,
Paul saved his manuscripts. He had already tried writing for L. Ron Hubbard,
but left when he saw how Dianetics was being turned into Scientology, and key
teachings were being left out, such as the importance of exteriorization and
healing from the higher self, called the Thetan, because these would not be
popular to the mainstream public.
So, Paul had been through this before. I think he tried to find some place
within an organization that already existed, but at some point he must have
realized that what he was trying to express didn't fit anywhere. So that's when
he started ECKANKAR.
When he first started out talking about ECK, he wrote little articles, and
short essays. These got published and picked up by a number of new age
publications, especially the New Cosmic Star, and Fate Magazine. When he got a
strong response from these, he decided to publish the books he had already
written.
I don't think Paul had a problem with taking Kirpal's name out, because Paul
had only put Kirpal's name in so that Kirpal would accept them. But Paul didn't
want to rewrite the books, so he went through and made the fewest changes
possible. By this time, Paul was no longer trying to gain anything through his
association with Kirpal or Sant Mat. He decided to start out in a new
direction, without riding on their coattails, you might say. And since Kirpal
had already rejected The Tiger's Fang, why would he leave Kirpal's name in? It
would only bring criticism and compaints from Kirpal.
Paul fictionalized his accounts, because he was an experienced writer and knew
that stories were far more effective than lectures. Paul set himself up as
simply a seeker, in The Tiger's Fang, because he knew from experience that
people learn very differently from those who come across as authorities, than
from someone who they can identify with, who is describing a personal
experience. He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country,
because this was a much more effective and interesting way of communicating,
than simply pontificating.
Later on, Paul wrote ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, where he tried to
establish himself as an expert on the field of Soul Travel, which he pulled
together from many different teachings, along with his own experiences and
workshops he had taught. Later yet, he added elements of religious overtones,
such as in the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad I and II, because he knew that there were
many who related to the religious experience and that approach.
Paul was just trying to go after all different levels of consciousness, and all
different viewpoints. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Doug.
SAMOREZ
In article <19980221222...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
(KMerrymoon) writes:
>Paul fictionalized his accounts, because he was an experienced writer and
>knew that stories were far more effective than lectures. Paul set himself up
>as simply a seeker, in The Tiger's Fang, because he knew from experience
>that people learn very differently from those who come across as authorities,
>than from someone who they can identify with, who is describing a
>personal experience. He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far
>Country, because this was a much more effective and interesting way of
>communicating, than simply pontificating.
Later on, Paul wrote ECKANKAR, The
>Key to Secret Worlds, where he tried to establish himself as an expert on the
>field of Soul Travel, which he pulled together from many different teachings,
>along with his own experiences and workshops he had taught. Later yet, he
>added elements of religious overtones,such as in the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad I
>and II, because he knew that there were many who related to the religious
>experience and that approach.
Paul was just trying to go after all different
>levels of consciousness, and all different viewpoints. Anyway, that's how I
>see it.
Doug.
Well, thanks for being honest. I'm so used to so many Eckists parroting the
party mythology as a means of justification and rationalization that I guess
I've gotten a little bit jaded.
I gotta tell you tho that it amazes me that you continue to ascribe such
magnanimous motives to PT, as if he was some kind of egoless being. My
experience with him (personal experience on THIS plane) is that he had more
than a touch of megalomania and was not at all above being self-serving and
self-seeking.
Can't prove it, but I believe Gail had more to do with him making Eckankar a
success by Whatever Means Necessary than by his own need to succeed. You know,
"behind every successful man, there is a woman...."
If I could have one wish it would be to have Gail write the true history of
Eckankar.
It would be a fascinating study in HUMAN interaction....
KMerrymoon
Sam wrote:
>I gotta tell you tho that it amazes me that you continue to ascribe such
>magnanimous motives to PT, as if he was some kind of egoless being. My
>experience with him (personal experience on THIS plane) is that he had more
>than a touch of megalomania and was not at all above being self-serving and
>self-seeking.
DOUG:
Well, Sam, I just haven't seen that side of Paul, like you have. But I have
seen the tremendous effort and care he put into his work.
SAM:
>Can't prove it, but I believe Gail had more to do with him making Eckankar a
>success by Whatever Means Necessary than by his own need to succeed. You know,
>"behind every successful man, there is a woman...."
DOUG:
I agree that Gail was a significant catalyst. She clearly encouraged him and
supported him in the beginning, and Paul promised that he would later find a
way for her to finish college, which he did.
But don't forget that Paul had already written The Tiger's Fang, Dialogues With
The Master, and The Far Country before he met Gail. Yet, through the letters
that Paul wrote to Gail, you can see that the interest she showed in what he
was writing clearly drew Paul on to write more. I think in this way, she
sparked him to make the big step and begin publishing his writings.
SAM:
>If I could have one wish it would be to have Gail write the true history of
>Eckankar.
>It would be a fascinating study in HUMAN interaction....
DOUG:
I'd find it fascinating as well.
zep...@connectexpress.com
In article <19980223062...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
>
> Sam wrote:
> >If I could have one wish it would be to have Gail write the true history of
> >Eckankar.
> >It would be a fascinating study in HUMAN interaction....
>
> DOUG:
> I'd find it fascinating as well.
Whoo, me three! But we'd have to wait till after she dies to
read it, because it would undoubtedly expose her to mucho legal
liability.
Kate
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Rich
Hello Shiva,
I have been enjoying your discussions with Doug. Several things struck
me in this post that I'd like you to comment on.
Shiva7 wrote:
> >Doug:
> >From what I know about Paul, my guess is that he first wrote these
> >early books,as a gift to Kirpal, when he was studying with him,
> >and he put Kirpal's name in these pieces in hopes that Kirpal would use them.
Shiva:
> Paul would not have reached the levels of planes that he did if the Sant Kirpal
> was just some teacher.
>From the different information that I have read, mostly in this NG,
there is some question about this. It seems that both Kirpal and Paul
said that the Tigers Fang experience was not with Kirpal. Kirpal
refused to accept it as Paul experienced it. It's been my experience
that inner experiences are often difficult to bring into the physical
intact. Seems it might have been a case of mistaken identity that they
both agreed on. Do you think it's a _possibility_ that it was not
Kirpal in the Tigers Fang after all?
> The relationship between the lover and the Beloved is
> much deeper than that. Who's gift was it to whom?
Apparently neither. Paul said that Kirpal was not the guru in his T.F.
experience and Kirpal did not acknowledge the experience either.
> I think Kirpal's refusal of "The Tiger's Fang" had to do with two major things:
>
> 1) Some of "The Tiger's Fang" was Twitchell's experiences in the dream-state.
I'm wondering if this is correct. What do you base this statement on?
Even if it is true, what makes you think that that is a reason that
Kirpal refused it?
> In Sant Mat, dreams are not accepted as a legitamite spiritual experience
> because you are not conscious.
That's curious. In Eckankar it is taught that one can be conscious, as
Soul, in any state, physical, dream, mental, whatever. So Sant Mat does
not acknowledge lucid dreaming?
> 2) It is advised that the disciple doesn't reveal his/her inner experience to
> any one but the Master.
Well, Paul originally turned the manuscript over to Kirpal so that
really doesn't hold up as a reason that Kirpal refused the manuscript.
> It is a matter of humility.
I agree. In Eckankar we have a Law of Silence. And, it is my
experience that it is just as much for what I mentioned earlier. That
when you bring inner experiences into thoughts and words it limits the
experience.
> Also, sharing ones inner experience creates karma.
Yes, and so can sharing ones outer experiences.:-)
> Paul may have been poisoned in Spain, or died
> of a heart attack or whatever, but he planted that seed long ago.
Paul planted a lot seeds and the tens of thousands of Eckist seem to be
part of the fruit that resulted from his efforts to expand the teaching
of the Light and Sound.
> In my lifetime,
> by his Grace I have been granted several personal interviews with the Master of
> my lineage. The message I recieved went far past language itself. I had
> questions I didn't even ask answered.
We are in full agreement on that. My experiences with Paul, Kirpal,
Darwin, and Harold have proven to me the blessings the Darshan can
bring.
Blessings!
Shiva7
Doug:
>From what I know about Paul, my guess is that he first wrote these early
>books,
>as a gift to Kirpal, when he was studying with him, and he put Kirpal's name
>in
>these pieces in hopes that Kirpal would use them.
Shiva:
Paul would not have reached the levels of planes that he did if the Sant Kirpal
was just some teacher. The relationship between the lover and the Beloved is
much deeper than that. Who's gift was it to whom?
I think Kirpal's refusal of "The Tiger's Fang" had to do with two major things:
1) Some of "The Tiger's Fang" was Twitchell's experiences in the dream-state.
In Sant Mat, dreams are not accepted as a legitamite spiritual experience
because you are not conscious.
2) It is advised that the disciple doesn't reveal his/her inner experience to
any one but the Master. It is a matter of humility. Also, sharing ones inner
experience creates karma. Twitchell is an extreme example. He goes from 'trying
to find an outlet for his writing' (as you put it, Doug) to being the Eck
Master and starting a religion. Paul may have been poisoned in Spain, or died
of a heart attack or whatever, but he planted that seed long ago.
Doug:
>Paul set himself up as
>simply a seeker, in The Tiger's Fang, because he knew from experience that
>people learn very differently from those who come across as authorities, than
>from someone who they can identify with, who is describing a personal
>experience. He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country,
>because this was a much more effective and interesting way of communicating,
>than simply pontificating.
Shiva:
I would probably say the same thing if my only experience with Sant Mat was
through books. Most of the Masters stick to the basics in talks and books
(though there is very useful and enlightening messages in both) most likely for
the purpose of keeping the teachings general enough so anyone may recieve
them. On one level, it does sound like pontification, perhaps. In my lifetime,
by his Grace I have been granted several personal interviews with the Master of
my lineage. The message I recieved went far past language itself. I had
questions I didn't even ask answered.
Doug:
>Paul was just trying to go after all different levels of consciousness, and
>all
>different viewpoints. Anyway, that's how I see it.
To me, this speaks more of your own receptivity to the Logos and its messengers
than anything. I see the same thing in the writings of Sant Mat, yet that is
the reason you give why Paul would feel the need to leave that Path.
With Love,
Shiva
radical
Shiva7 wrote:
>
> Doug:
> >From what I know about Paul, my guess is that he first wrote these early
> >books,
> >as a gift to Kirpal, when he was studying with him, and he put Kirpal's name
> >in
> >these pieces in hopes that Kirpal would use them.
> I think Kirpal's refusal of "The Tiger's Fang" had to do with two major things:
>
> 1) Some of "The Tiger's Fang" was Twitchell's experiences in the dream-state.
> In Sant Mat, dreams are not accepted as a legitamite spiritual experience
> because you are not conscious.
> 2) It is advised that the disciple doesn't reveal his/her inner experience to
> any one but the Master. It is a matter of humility. Also, sharing ones inner
> experience creates karma. Twitchell is an extreme example. He goes from 'trying
> to find an outlet for his writing' (as you put it, Doug) to being the Eck
> Master and starting a religion. Paul may have been poisoned in Spain, or died
> of a heart attack or whatever, but he planted that seed long ago.
>
> Doug:
>
> >Paul set himself up as
> >simply a seeker, in The Tiger's Fang, because he knew from experience that
> >people learn very differently from those who come across as authorities, than
> >from someone who they can identify with, who is describing a personal
> >experience. He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country,
> >because this was a much more effective and interesting way of communicating,
> >than simply pontificating.
>
I must have inadvertantly saved myself alot of grief early on in
Eckankar. Since I encountered Eck Master-type figures in the dream
state and soul travel and never once did any of them ever "hold forth",
pontificate or get tiresomely didactic on me, I just came to the
conclusion that all these books that PT wrote were fictional, insofar as
the dialogue in them anyway. I knew that using the Socratic Dialogue
was a time honored method of teaching in the western tradition, and I
just figured that's what Paul was doing to make his points.
It's easy enough to create a narrative to "explain" to someone your
process of learning in a very subjective state of consciousness. You
invent a dialogue, (or borrow one as the case may be) that illustrates
what you realized, or what you want to get across. You point the
dialogue bubble in the direction of Eck Master X and let him/her do the
talking. Point is made in a colorful way, copyrights notwithstanding.
And well, didn't the Mahanta "tell" you this in a manner of speaking?
The insight was "communicated" at any rate.
Of course then there's lots of assumptions involved that eventually come
into question as you go further along the thread...like the whole I/Thou
thing for instance, which may well be nothing more than a temporarily
useful, but ultimately very misleading paradigm. You begin to become
aware perhaps that nothing is ever "communicated" at all and so therefor
whatever words occur to you inwardly are most likely your own constructs
overlayed on an experience you couldn't consciously recognize...
Following the thread this far is generally frowned upon. But what are
you gonna do? Sit still?
Manamana...du...dup...da...doobie...dup.
Dean Cooper
Shiva said:
> > In Sant Mat, dreams are not accepted as a legitamite spiritual experience
> > because you are not conscious.
>
Rich said:
> That's curious. In Eckankar it is taught that one can be conscious, as
> Soul, in any state, physical, dream, mental, whatever. So Sant Mat does
> not acknowledge lucid dreaming?
Dean said:
To the best of my knowledge, in Sant Mat, dreams are considered very
illusory,
whether lucid or not. Again, in Sant Mat, genuine experience of higher
planes is had
only by passing through the third eye.
The point of Sant Mat spiritual practices, is to strengthen the
attentive faculty of
the soul, so that the inner gaze becomes strong enough to pierce through
the third
eye, and consciously withdraw the attention from the physical to the
higher planes.
Simran, the repetition of a mantra at the third eye, is one of the
methods. The other
is listening to the Shabd in the right ear. Of the two, simran is
designed to produce
intense focus of concentration, without strain.
Separate from Sant Mat proper, Swami Sri Yukteswar, the guru of
Paramahansa Yogananda,
said in his book, 'The Holy Science', that the effect of Kriya Yoga was:
"...(to) gradually advance(s) through the states of meditation; and how,
ultimately,
by concentrating his attention on the sensorium, he perceives the
peculiar sound,
Pranava or Sabda, the Holy Word, at which time the heart becomes divine
and the Ego,
Ahamkara, or son of man becomes merged or baptized in the stream
thereof..." (Sutra
8)
and:
"In the state of baptism (Bhakti Yoga, or Surat Sabd Yoga, absorption of
the Ego in
the holy Sound) man repents and withdraws his self from the external
world of gross
matters, Bhuloka, and enters into the internal one of fine matter, the
Bhuvarloka."
(Sutra 9)
The Kriya Yoga lineage of Lahiri Mahasaya, is not normally considered
part of Sant
Mat, since the techniques of Kriya yoga are largely traditional Hatha
yoga and
Pranayama. Kriya yoga was to be used in the same way that Sant Mat
simran is to be
used: to strengthen the attentive faculty, pierce the third eye, and
merge in to the
Light and Sound.
I find it curious that Yogananda didn't talk about this much at all, and
the numerous
teachers of Kriya currently around don't either.
I lucid dream frequently. The qualities of lucid dream experiences are
very different
from experiences had through the third eye focus. I can't explain it
clearly, other
than to say that what is seen, heard, and felt, through the third eye,
is vastly more
lucid, than lucid dreams.
With love,
Dean
Rich
Dean Cooper wrote:
<snip>
Thanks for the info Dean.
Ultimately I(Soul) view all duality as illusionary.:-D
> I lucid dream frequently. The qualities of lucid dream experiences are
> very different
> from experiences had through the third eye focus. I can't explain it
> clearly, other
> than to say that what is seen, heard, and felt, through the third eye,
> is vastly more
> lucid, than lucid dreams.
My experience of lucid dreaming is that I 'wake up' in the dream. I
become aware that I am dreaming. It's a dual state of consciousness
where I am in control of my actions, yet my body is asleep.
If this is how you experience it, next time you are in this state, if
you want, try one or all of these: Pass through the third eye, look for
your master, repeat your mantra, listen to the Shabd. Even if you
consider dreams as entirely illusory, the kinds of experiences that can
be had by this exercise can a third eye opener.
^o^
OjO
\_/
Shiva7
Rich writes:
>My experience of lucid dreaming is that I 'wake up' in the dream. I
>become aware that I am dreaming. It's a dual state of consciousness
>where I am in control of my actions, yet my body is asleep.
>
>If this is how you experience it, next time you are in this state, if
>you want, try one or all of these: Pass through the third eye, look for
>your master, repeat your mantra, listen to the Shabd. Even if you
>consider dreams as entirely illusory, the kinds of experiences that can
>be had by this exercise can a third eye opener.
If I can pass thru the third eye, look for my master, etc. why go to sleep in
the first place? If you are that lucid or whatever, than you are conscious, why
get subconscious first? That's kind of like going out the back door of the
house to get the mail on the front porch.
You are more likely in the dream state to pierce a lower chakra and enter into
the astral planes from there. There are a lot of ways to get to the inner
planes, but anything below the third eye is a marred reflection of what sits at
the third eye. There aren't many methods on how to transcend those planes to
the final source-- Sach Kand and Anami.
With Love,
Shiva
Rich
Shiva7 wrote:
> Rich writes:
> >My experience of lucid dreaming is that I 'wake up' in the dream. I
> >become aware that I am dreaming. It's a dual state of consciousness
> >where I am in control of my actions, yet my body is asleep.
> >
> >If this is how you experience it, next time you are in this state, if
> >you want, try one or all of these: Pass through the third eye, look for
> >your master, repeat your mantra, listen to the Shabd. Even if you
> >consider dreams as entirely illusory, the kinds of experiences that can
> >be had by this exercise can a third eye opener.
> If I can pass thru the third eye, look for my master, etc. why go to sleep in
> the first place?
For me it's just a funny habit I have. Seems like every night I do it
whether I want to or not.<VBG> So, might as well make good use of the
time gaining spiritual experience rather than the more mundane kinds of
dreams. Don't get me wrong, I don't do it that much, and I enjoy a lot
of my regular dream time.<G>
> You are more likely in the dream state to pierce a lower chakra and
> enter into the astral planes from there.
Generally I agree but I think that it can vary with the individual. If
one consciously seeks to move to higher planes in the dream state it can
be done. For instance, do you think your master is limited to the
astral plane when he dreams?
<snip>
> There aren't many methods on how to transcend those planes to
> the final source-- Sach Kand and Anami.
Perhaps there aren't many in Sant Mat tradition but Eckankar teaches
dozens and dozens of spiritual exercises throughout the books and
discourses.
The important thing is to continue practicing and keep one's Eye on the
goal.
MTBB
SAMOREZ
In article <34F55...@chollian.dacom.co.kr>, radical
<trik...@chollian.dacom.co.kr> writes:
>You begin to become aware perhaps that nothing is ever "communicated" at all
>and so therefor whatever words occur to you inwardly are most likely your own
>constructs overlayed on an experience you couldn't consciously recognize...
Excellent point and well said.
Of course, further compounded when some people try to solidify/validate their
projections/visions as verifiable and reproducable events and then even further
compounded when such people write them down and try to sell them to make a
living and/or be somebody important and special.
cinder
In article <34F55...@chollian.dacom.co.kr>,
trik...@chollian.dacom.co.kr wrote:
-> Of course then there's lots of assumptions involved that eventually come
-> into question as you go further along the thread...like the whole I/Thou
-> thing for instance, which may well be nothing more than a temporarily
-> useful, but ultimately very misleading paradigm. You begin to become
-> aware perhaps that nothing is ever "communicated" at all and so therefor
-> whatever words occur to you inwardly are most likely your own constructs
-> overlayed on an experience you couldn't consciously recognize...
->
-> Following the thread this far is generally frowned upon. But what are
-> you gonna do? Sit still?
->
-> Manamana...du...dup...da...doobie...dup.
Great thread subject change! Most people do sit still even when they
think they are moving mountains with their vast amounts of verbosity.
I like what you said Mr. 'radical.' But especially your subject!
csk
--