SUGMAD

[fife]

SUGMAD, based on the Sanskrit roots the word is made up of, means "easy of going, thornless" or in modern English "easygoing, troublefree".

[Etznab]

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:26:13 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> SUGMAD, based on the Sanskrit roots the word is made up of, means "easy of going, thornless" or in modern English "easygoing, troublefree".

Do you think it, SUGMAD, is some kind of God that can speak to people? Like Paul Twitchell?

Example: "Twice I have spake to thee, O Son of My Heart!" - Dialogues With The Master, Eighth Printing - 1983 p. 201

[fife]

That would depend on how you percive what you're thinking about or contemplating. The example you give is of course someone expressing themselves poetically.

[fife]

Hey Etz. Yeah, looking over my answer from a couple of days ago ... let me be more direct. I think SUGMAD is supposed to be a transcendental idea like peace, love, happiness. Do those speak to people in so many words?
The weirdest thing about SUGMAD is that no one in Eckankar seems curious about it. But, what the hey. Eckankar is hugely emotional and not entirely rational. There is no rigorous philosophical inquiry into the nature of anything spiritual associated with Eckankar. Just, "here it is", "accommodate it", don't think too much, it disturbs the euphoric mood.

[DaSilva]

I heard that Darwin Gross loved the MJQ.

I listened to the MJQ when I was 11 years old, used to go to sleep to one of
their albums, I forget which one it was.



"fife" <ae2f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eef8a8f-da6b-4c7a...@googlegroups.com...

[Tisra Chill]

Hey DaSilva,

yes, Darwin played with those guys a lot. Lovely Music.
He recorded his own albums, one of my favs "Little do some know"

btw, i sell one of Darwins Vibraphones.
so if you are interested.

Cheers

[Etznab]

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:26:13 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:

> SUGMAD, based on the Sanskrit roots the word is made up of, means "easy of going, thornless" or in modern English "easygoing, troublefree".

It's fairly evident that Paul Twitchell had a habit of changing things like the spellings of names and words. Eckankar vs. Ekankar, etc. So I don't know if one can find a history of "sugmad" in the Sanskrit dictionary that corresponds with the definition that Paul Twitchell gave. Iow, that spelling could be a corruption, or an evolution for an older spelling. It could also be a word made up by Paul so he could have a word for God different from any other path / religion.

Paul's dictionary definition said that Sugmad has and inside (Nirguna) and an outside (Saguna).

[Etznab]

Nirguna and Saguna were discussed on the following page.
https://www.slideshare.net/H.S.VIRK/big-bang-cosmology-in-religion-and-science

Along with another word spelled sukham. Quoting ...

24. Invisible to Visible (Sukham to Asthool) • In Gurbani, God is also referred to exist in two phases: subtle (sukham) and solid (asthool). • nank s] sUKmu s]eI AsTUlu . O Nanak, He is the subtle, and He is also the manifest. (SGGS, M. 5, P. 281) • riv rihAa srbt OaeI sUKm] AsTUl . He is the source of life. He is all-pervading, permeating all places;He is in subtle essence and manifest form. (SGGS, M. 5, P. 987)

I believe the Sanskrit "kham" means something like "space", as in the universe, celestial.

khamUrti f. a celestial body or person ; %{-mat} mfn. having a divine or celestial person or form Mn. ii , 82.

https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/tamil/index.html

[fife]

Hi. Yeah. I'm saying that Paul must have simply made the word up. And that's why the whole word can't be found in any sanskrit dictionary. Simply made the word up himself using the sanskrit root for thornless and the sanskrit root for easy of going.

And nirguna/saguna, inner/outer is the existential condition of the God, not the etymology of the word.

But if you can find a better explanation somewhere, one you like better, go for it.

[Etznab]

It is possible he made the word up to replace another word. Like the word God, or Sat Nam. I believe there is written evidence to confirm the latter.

So maybe God was too Christian-sounding. Maybe had too many Christian religion stereotypes.

And maybe Sat Nam had too many Radha Soami and / or Ruhani Satsang stereotypes.

People are still debating today whether God in the Bible ever talked to people. Or (depending on the scriptures) whether anybody has "seen" God. Some may say yea and some may say nay. I think the difference depends on the scripture, on the illustrated words and what people think they mean.

[Etznab]

When Twitchell illustrated Sugmad speaking to him and to Rebazar Tarzs, it was a character called Sugmad and not the Christian word God, or Sat Nam; though he may have associated Sugmad with at least God; writing that Sugmad has been known by other names.

[fife]

Query. Does that make Eckankar a pseudo religion as far as religions go? Is SUGMAD a false God? Are all Gods false? Are some Gods true? Does it matter from a religious perspective?

[Etznab]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Query. Does that make Eckankar a pseudo religion as far as religions go? Is SUGMAD a false God? Are all Gods false? Are some Gods true? Does it matter from a religious perspective?

I don't know. Whatever God it is why don't you prove that it exists. What evidence do you have for any God? Imagination? Is that the proof? What is written in a book and said by other people? Is that the proof? You're talking about God or Gods, but How do I know any of them are real without some real proof?

Paul used a number of words for "God". My God. He read books and copied from a great number of them. And when he wrote what the Gods allegedly said, a whole lot of it was copied from books, or plagiarized; just like the words used to animate Eck Masters.

IMO there are pseudo elements in religion and history and it takes away from the truth that could be. Fiction books are valued for entertainment, but it varies according to the individual. Some people like reference books that contain non-fiction. I like both.

[fife]

Okay. I'm saying pseudo (false) religion is a hoot. It's an oxymoron isn't it? Like saying "wet" "water". But you don't figure out what's what by mixing up the objective, exoteric, part of the religion with the subjective, esoteric part.

[Henosis Sage]

On Monday, 3 June 2019 10:58:20 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Okay. I'm saying pseudo (false) religion is a hoot. It's an oxymoron isn't it? Like saying "wet" "water". But you don't figure out what's what by mixing up the objective, exoteric, part of the religion with the subjective, esoteric part.

Maybe not. Looking at the long history though it appears as if every eckist has that "problem" - must come with the territory given everyone makes the same journey (one way or the other)

I'm also not convinced that your words (while similar) are automatically synonymous btw.
I'll hit you up on another thread about that. Unasked for advice is my speciality! lol :-)

[fife]

Bring it on. You can give me unasked for advice any time.

[Henosis Sage]

On Monday, 3 June 2019 14:37:19 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Bring it on. You can give me unasked for advice any time.

OK, I DID. HERE'S ANOTHER "YOU'RE LIKE A DOG WITH A BONE, at the moment".

(BIG SMILE/JOKING)

By way of example, and the value of historical research and the critical difference it can make - but usually doesn't.

Take Patti's book, Paulji a Memoir. About 2/3s the way in ...

Objective: Patti is running a monthly discourse satsang with a group of ladies. Every time Paul telephones her and speaks for 15+ minutes about whatever, interrupting the satsang. They all get so used to this happening they all expect it. They think it's great and a "special treat" from Paulji the Mahanta the living ECK master.

Subjective: The LEM is all knowing, he knows Patti is running her Satsang, Paulji sees Patti as "special" his right hand woman, and as a result he calls her during this satsang like clockwork knowing what he is doing.

(note: Objective fact: actually he didn't know, it was just a coincidence, or because Patti and the ladies were thinking of him he "picked that up" and it remind him he needed to tell her something, or ask her something, so he did. Like the other day a freind was thinking of me and decided to come visit, at that time mI thought of him, and was going to ring but didn't bother. A few hours later he showed up at my door. I aid, "hey I was thinking of you and here you are!" I must be the current LEM then? )

Patti's ESOTERIC opinion was: "The LEM is all knowing, he knows Patti is running her Satsang, Paulji sees Patti as "special" his right hand woman, and as a result he calls her during this satsang like clockwork knowing what he is doing."

Note the copy/paste!!!

Until such time when Paul told her, he had NO IDEA she was ina Satsang and she should NOT have interrupted the satsang to take a damned phone call form anyone, even him!!! Further he asked how far they were through the new discourse series then, Patti said they were not even reading it each class ... Paul HITS THE ROOF and BALLS HER OUT for not doing what she should be doing guiding that class!!!
and HE HANGS UP ON HER REALLY PISSED OFF.

Objective: Patti has a mental breakdown for weeks
Subjective: Paul is not all knowing.
Exoteric Teachings: The Mahanata LEM is all knowing and looking out for us.
Esoteric Experience: The Mahanta LEM is not all knowing or looking out for us.

Subjective: I am a fool, Paul lied to me, I believed him, I am gullible and stupid. I can no longer follow him as the LEM. I am having a mental breakdown now!

The rest is "History" .... go read the book. ;-)

[fife]

Yes. Yes I am like a dog with a bone at the moment.
And, yeah. That Patti/Paul example is the way eckists rationalize objectivity into subjectivity that is not subjectivity and doesn't exist. They've been doing it for 54 years. WTF? No one in the thousands that have passed through Eckankar... ? Ahhh. What's the point?

🐕 🌽

Couldn't find a bone. How about a dog with an ear of corn?

[Etznab]

Sounds like what an apologist would say.

[fife]

Etznab

We're not going to go any where or get any where with this.

Look. Do you have a learning disability? Because if you do, that would explain a lot. And if you do, that's okay. Perfectly. Otherwise, I'm at a complete loss to understand the cognitive and communications issues you insist on and chew on over and over like a dog with a bone it won't give up. That's all, I guess.

[Etznab]

🐕

[fife]

Woof.

[Etznab]

On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 12:51:34 AM UTC-6, fife wrote:

https://www.bhagavadgitausa.com/DeivaththinKural.htm

[fife]

?
I'm not sure where or how the Mahaswami's words of distilled wisdom explain where Paul T. gets the word "SUGMAD" from but if you prefer this explanation, okay.

[fife]

I originally posted this topic because it was my experience that for a theistic movement Eckankar focuses scant attention on the SUGMAD or contemplation of the SUGMAD and (again, in my experience) there's no contemplation of what the literal meaning of the word "SUGMAD" is.

And (as has been pointed out) if H. Klemp has been teaching (since 2012-2013) that "Eckankar" means "co-worker with the Mahanta" that pretty much proves my point.

To me, this only confirms that Eckankar has never been about God in any eternal, divine, or supernatural way but always about the Mahanta.

I really couldn't care less about Eckankar any more as it is just a whirling, swirling vortex of ideas with lots of diversions rather than an intellectual, emotional, and sensational extension of God into the human frame of reference. The many, many ways of decscibing itself over the years from The Ancient Science of Soul Travel to The Path of Spiritual Freedom (?) today only points out that it doesn't and never has achieved its own self realization never mind something more.

If someone enjoys the vortex, good for them. But I couldn't care less about Samsara and Antahkarana any more.

[Etznab]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 10:17:43 AM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> ?
> I'm not sure where or how the Mahaswami's words of distilled wisdom explain where Paul T. gets the word "SUGMAD" from but if you prefer this explanation, okay.

There was a word on that page spelled "sukam" with the general meaning of happy, or happiness.

And when one searches the dictionary for "sukam", one can find "sukama"

https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

And in that same dictionary the prefix sounds "sukh" and "sug" also suggest happy and easy.

I am not sure where you found the definition "thornless", but "easy going" I can see that for the prefix "sug-"

[Etznab]

If there were a real genuine lineage of masters I think that could help out any religion, or path. Their knowledge and support could ensure the truth and a good sense of clarity. However, the lineage that is positively known consists of three people. The first who died without having first named a successor. The second named by the former's widow; whom she later married (making her wife of two Eckankar leaders). And the third who dismissed the second who named him his successor. That is all quite unusual for a lineage, IMHO. Especially since the wife of the first two leaders collected a half million dollars and hasn't been heard from much for many years.

So ... What if the "lineage" really consists of copied book text not having come from a lineage of Eckankar masters? Besides, if Eckankar came from Ekankar then shall we not find out something about Eckankar after searching the history for Ekankar? It was evidently described as both "God" and "Spirit".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XM6S51PMPwI/jiamAU7PCQAJ

And Paul Twitchell even spelled out that Eckankar came from Ekankar. (That was also illustrated on the above link.)

BTW ...

My question has always been about whether "Eckankar" came from a long unbroken lineage of living masters such as Rebazar Tarzs. And if that was the case then why do other names precede Rebazar Tarzs and other eck masters?; as if Paul changed those things too?

"[...] When the great Buddha was a poor hungry beggar in pursuit of his spiritual objectives, his true nobility stood out far more than it did when he was in the midst of his father's royal splendors. When Jesus, who might have commanded any army — so great was his mental energy — walked the dusty streets, tired and hungry in order that he might carry the bread of life to the multitudes, his greatness eclipsed all the splendors of Rome. [... .]"

https://archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt

"[...] When the great Buddha was a poor hungry beggar in pursuit of his spiritual objectives, his true nobility stood out far more than it did when he was in the midst of his father's royal splendors. When Jesus, who might have commanded any army — so great was his mental energy — walked the dusty streets, tired and hungry in order that he might carry the bread of life to the multitudes, his greatness eclipsed all the splendors of Rome. [....]"

Based on: The Path Of The Masters - THE GREAT WORK OF THE MASTERS, p.
432, 2nd paragraph.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt

"[...] When Buddha was a poor, hungry beggar in pursuit of his spiritual objectives, his true nobility stood out far more than it did when he was in the midst of his father's royal splendors. When Rebazar Tarzs might have commanded any army, so great was his mental energy, walked the dusty streets when in his youth, tired and hungry, in order that he might carry the spiritual message to the multitudes, his greatness eclipsed all the splendors of this world. [....]"

Based on: Letters to Gail, Volume 1, by Paul Twitchell, 5th Printing-1983, p. 117, 2nd paragraph.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/K_KHjXD6I28/kkJmfFZwAAAJ

How did Jesus (or how many other names) turn into Rebazar Tarzs? And I think the reason is that someone wanted to edit out so many former names so as not to ally with the negative stereotypes attributed to same. But does that justify making up of fictional masters and fictional histories for fictional masters? Does it justify selling that to so many people to the point some are convinced they saw these masters even before they heard of Eckankar?

How does Eckankar like it when the same is done to it? When someone copies their texts and changes the names and / or the content? How about karma anybody?

[Henosis Sage]

RE................if H. Klemp has been teaching (since 2012-2013) that "Eckankar" means "co-worker with the Mahanta" that pretty much proves my point.

Ooops, no I think you misunderstood my point, history news about this.

HK didn;t chnage the meaning of the word "eckankar" to mean that.

He has moved the "goalposts" of how he was using the phrase "co-worker" ... which used to be about a co-worker wiht god"

very similar to Kirpal Singhs use of that similar phrase ... to ALSO using it a TOOL to motivate eckists to be Missionaries and for them to be an active "Co-worker with the Mahanta"


and when I saw this being used like this is wasn't about the "inner Mahanta" ideal but very much about HK personally and his job as the leader of eckanakr.

but the technical meaning idea of eckankar is still sometiumes called "coworker with god" but tere are multiple meanings obviously ... including PTs where he said it was a TYPO mistake he made, that it should not a C in it, iow it was straight out of Kirpals' often used word EKANKAR
.. as shown on the pteha and in a.r.e. posts

i hope that clears up the confusion
cheers

[Etznab]

O.K. Do you think it, SUGMAD, is some kind of God that can speak to people? Like Paul Twitchell?

For example: "Twice I have spake to thee, O Son of My Heart!" - Dialogues With The Master, Eighth Printing - 1983 p. 201

[Etznab]

How many people have claimed that God spoke to them? Subjective experiences and beliefs?

Some believed God told them to go forth and conquer. Subjective beliefs and opinions?

A lot of the subjective experiences can be checked against objective facts. Not all maybe, but a lot can.

[fife]

Try to understand this. There is no development of the idea of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent SUGMAD in Eckankar. So what it is or isn't, can or can't do or is or isn't capable of is in the wind. Entirely in the wind.

That said, what ever the character of the SUGAMAD, if it's finally, ever, decided (not likely) ... no, would not speak in audible words. No.

[fife]

Etznab wrote:
How many people have claimed that God spoke to them? Subjective experiences and beliefs?

Maybe. No way to check that. But what it's taken to be is the expression of a poetic metaphor. If they're really hearing voices they probably "need their head examined."

[Etznab]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 8:31:22 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Try to understand this. There is no development of the idea of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent SUGMAD in Eckankar. So what it is or isn't, can or can't do or is or isn't capable of is in the wind. Entirely in the wind.
>
> That said, what ever the character of the SUGAMAD, if it's finally, ever, decided (not likely) ... no, would not speak in audible words. No.

Not asking what Eckankar thinks.

Here it is for the third time.

O.K. Do you think it, SUGMAD, is some kind of God that can speak to people? Like Paul Twitchell?

For example: "Twice I have spake to thee, O Son of My Heart!" - Dialogues With The Master, Eighth Printing - 1983 p. 201

What do you think?

Those were like the first things I wrote to you after first you appeared here under the Fife name. If you don't believe me then go to top of this thread and look. Also, look at your answer.

It wasn't about me. It wasn't about Eckankar. It was about: Do you think it, SUGMAD, is some kind of God that can speak to people? Like Paul Twitchell?

[fife]

Do you understand what I mean? 90-100 per cent of the "Sants" are all poets. Mystic poets.

[Etznab]

What do YOU think about Sugmad? A God that speaks to people???

[Etznab]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 8:48:44 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Do you understand what I mean? 90-100 per cent of the "Sants" are all poets. Mystic poets.

I'm not asking the poets / Sants. I asked you.

[fife]

No. Etznab. "I do not think that SUGMAD is some kind of God that can speak to people like Paul Twitchell."

[fife]

My God, does everyone have to turn every subject into and object for you because you're so bloody minded that you insist on that?

[Etznab]

Thanks!

[fife]

You're welcome. 👍

[Etznab]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 8:52:18 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> No. Etznab. "I do not think that SUGMAD is some kind of God that can speak to people like Paul Twitchell."

Can Sugmad speak to, communicate to people at all? Through nature? Through symbols? Through any medium; including light and sound?

Just thinking out loud. Not asking any one person specifically.

[fife]

Can Sugmad speak to, communicate to people at all? Through nature? Through symbols? Through any medium; including light and sound?

Just thinking out loud. Not asking any one person specifically.

Okay. This is just my opinion. Yes?

I think that the way to approach that question and it's answer is to first ask, "what is the SUGMAD"? Is it love and mercy? Do love and mercy communicate through nature and people. I don't think symbols. Symbols are the worst.

[Etznab]

Love and mercy? This is what you think Sugmad is?

Natural disasters, plagues and the like ... could these exist without a Sugmad?
Corporate cronies and puppet politicians ...? Does Sug.ad have anything to do with those? I mean, Did Sugmaf have any part in the creation of humans? Or was that Mother Nature?

Eckankar described spirit, the spirit of God as an unconditional force. One that was specified by Soul, whatever.

[Etznab]

So, if the spirit of God is unconditional or impersonal, then how much moreso the Sugmad?

Is this the kind of love and mercy you were referring to?

[fife]

Is this the kind of love and mercy you were referring to?

No.

Eckankar teaches the SUDMAD ITSELF is The Ocean of Love and Mercy. Yes? I don't think this is a bad idea of God, a bad concept of God if you're going to have one.

Did you read what host of oceans posted in the is Rebazar Tarzs real thread about belief? And you experience what you believe? And in his second post about bashing? If you bash God, what do you get?

[fife]

host of oceans also said something else in his first post about Spiritual Warriors.

"what was formerly a goal: Spiritual Warriors."

Spiritual warrior
The term spiritual warrior is used in Tibetan Buddhism for one who combats the universal enemy: self-ignorance, the ultimate source of suffering according to Buddhist philosophy. A heroic being with a brave mind and ethical impulse. Different from other paths, which focus on individual salvation, the spiritual warrior's only complete and right practice is that which compassionately helps other beings with wisdom. This is the Bodhisattva ideal, the spiritual warrior who resolves to attain buddhahood in order to liberate others. The term is also used generically in esotericism and self-help literature. Spiritual warrior, "illuminated heart and valiant one", "enlightenment hero", "one who aspires for enlightenment" or, "heroic being" has been defined as a bodhisattva.

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

It's like what H.S. was saying a few days ago with his Bruce Lee example. Go with what you feel. Don't go with your anger. Go with what you feel.

If your belief is an angry one that's what you will experience.

[Tisra Til]

Isn't that kind of a dualistic idea? Why not hatred and ruthlessness? Isn't that also part of the oneness of creation (or God, if you want to personalize IT)? Can God (personal or impersonal) be apart from creation? Outside it?

How does that compare with the tri-fold God in Hinduism? Creator - Sustainer - Destroyer. IT - exhibits all three qualities. Seeing them as three separate gods is a metaphor for the tri-fold nature of Deity. IMO

[fife]

Isn't that kind of a dualistic idea? Why not hatred and ruthlessness? Isn't that also part of the oneness of creation (or God, if you want to personalize IT)? Can God (personal or impersonal) be apart from creation? Outside it?

How does that compare with the tri-fold God in Hinduism? Creator - Sustainer - Destroyer. IT - exhibits all three qualities. Seeing them as three separate gods is a metaphor for the tri-fold nature of Deity. IMO

Dualistic? Is one God that's love on the inside and mercy on the outside dualistic? Is hatred and ruthlessness part of the creation? Not part of the love and mercy creation. What humans get up to with their imagination and human nature is something else, though. Especially if imagination and power are identical to them, synonymous. The same thing.

Yeah. And the trinity of Brahm. That's another discussion isn't it? I see the four (the one and the three) as an interperetation of Antahkarana.

[Tisra Til]

What does that even mean?

[fife]

What does that even mean?

Okay. Is the absolute one thing? Or one thing in it's inner form and the same thing restated when viewed from the outside. Like love and mercy?

[fife]

Love when you're in it, one with it, reaching everywhere? And mercy for someone viewing that, who hasn't realized themself as one with the Absolute yet.

[Tisra Til]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:06:49 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> What does that even mean?
>
> Okay. Is the absolute one thing? Or one thing in it's inner form and the same thing restated when viewed from the outside. Like love and mercy?

According to nondual philosophy, inside and outside are conveniences of language that we use to try to conceptualize something outside of language. In "reality" there is no inside or outside. Just the oneness of existence.

So within that framework, "God" includes every"thing" - inside or outside, black or white, top or bottom (love - hate, truth - lie). But because we have an ego - which is what self-reflection is based on, something (most) animals don't possess - we chop reality up and anthropomorphize it, based on our own concepts of how IT should be. But in the nondual state - above the ego - there is the oneness of the ALL THAT IS, or the wholeness of existence. And so on.... imo

[fife]

Okay. Maybe I'm in the weeds here. Everyone doesn't start off knowing, understanding, and experiencing one with everything. That's something they have to find. So they start off in duality (an illusion) but they wind up in nonduality.

[fife]

But in the nondual state - above the ego - there is the oneness of the ALL THAT IS, or the wholeness of existence. And so on.... imo

Is there any differentiation of any sort in that state?

[Tisra Til]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:18:08 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> Love when you're in it, one with it, reaching everywhere? And mercy for someone viewing that, who hasn't realized themself as one with the Absolute yet.

The closest thing imo that would describe the Absolute is nothingness, emptiness, or nought - like the zero in mathematics. Or the isness of creation. Terms like love, mercy, power, strength are qualifiers that can give a hint as to it's nature, but the very qualifying is a dualistic process, and takes one away from It.

But that gets away from a personal deity like Sugmad. In Hinduism even Brahman as creator-sustainer-destroyer is seen as dualistic and illusion (maya), and there is still something beyond that. What we call the Absolute.

[fife]

So, like Tao before duality? Okay. Love, mercy, all qualifiers are meaningless. In fact, don't exist.

[Tisra Til]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:33:20 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> But in the nondual state - above the ego - there is the oneness of the ALL THAT IS, or the wholeness of existence. And so on.... imo
>
> Is there any differentiation of any sort in that state?

There is a time lag between answering your previous post and receiving your latest post.

But no, no differentiation. Only when thought intervenes that the dualistic process begins again. The chain of dependent origination. Karma continues. That's how I sees it. o*O

[fife]

And balance? Because were experiencing the Absolute in a dualistic state or from a dualistic state, so can only experience it briefly?

[Tisra Til]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:46:06 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> So, like Tao before duality? Okay. Love, mercy, all qualifiers are meaningless. In fact, don't exist.

Yes, I think that is a more abstract, philosophical way of viewing It, rather than the anthropomorphic idea of a personal deity that possesses all of these different qualities. But that includes the positive (yang) and the negative (yin) qualities that we are immersed in.

[Tisra Til]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:53:48 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> And balance? Because were experiencing the Absolute in a dualistic state or from a dualistic state, so can only experience it briefly?

Yes, that is one of the main things that attracted me to Taoist philosophy. Finding balance between the extremes-opposites. It's a neverending process. Or seems that way ;o)

[fife]

There is a time lag between answering your previous post and receiving your latest post.

Yes. I don't know if you mean the same thing but I've been having a problem getting thus site to load for a couple of days. Google says it's a problem connecting with the server. So it must be the server this site is on? Because I'm connecting to everything else.

[Tisra Til]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> There is a time lag between answering your previous post and receiving your latest post.
>
> Yes. I don't know if you mean the same thing but I've been having a problem getting thus site to load for a couple of days. Google says it's a problem connecting with the server. So it must be the server this site is on? Because I'm connecting to everything else.

No, I meant having one thought following the next.
I'm not saying that experiencing Love and Mercy and Power as a transcendental, divine experience is not real or possesses no reality or positive qualities to it. It is very real to the one experiencing it. Most of us have been there. But there is always the other side. Which Eck. and company have personified as the Kal.

[fife]

No, I meant having one thought following the next.
I'm not saying that experiencing Love and Mercy and Power as a transcendental, divine experience is not real or possesses no reality or positive qualities to it. It is very real to the one experiencing it. Most of us have been there. But there is always the other side. Which Eck. and company have personified as the Kal.

Yes. I'm just reflecting on love and mercy because this is a thread about SUGMAD. host of oceans posts on the Is Rebazar Tarzs real thread are interesting. Apparently Eckankar is up to the same old thing in his experience.

[Tisra Til]

It's interesting to me too. It is something I have contemplated many a time.

[Etznab]

Part of the problem describing something you don't know or understand is that you don't know and understand.

And when that happens, proud people with egos in overdrive start to imagine the answer and the BELIEVE what they imagine.

Remember Harold's quote about the real foundation? He said you have to know and that (in so many words) your conduct is based on what you know.

Well some people who imagine and believe think they know! Even when the imagination and belief are off the mark.

Let's look at people who come here and criticize posters for bashing Eckankar. Who are the bashers? Certainly not the people who ask questions and seeking the truth. Maybe the Eckists and x-eckists who bash the sincere seekers and have an appetite for chicken dinners?

Lies and falsehoods, whether about the pseudo history of religion, or the malicious falsehoods thrown at people in the form of personal attacks, are what people in this group have to bash and have bashed. That is not the same as bashing Eckankar.

What is true, or good about Eckankar? That was a thread. Maybe now is time to review that thread and learn what is the definition of bashing Eckankar, bashing posters here and defending against the bashing.

[Etznab]

Challenging the lies and pseudo history to get at the actual truth and defending against those who bash you for doing so IS NOT Eckankar bashing. Rather, that is IMO what the wolves want you to believe.

People in this group have been demonized from the beginning for asking questions. By Eckists and Ex-Eckists.

I think one needs to be more specific when they mention Eckankar bashing. IOW, give examples.

[fife]

8:10 AMEtznab

8:18 AMEtznab

Challenging the lies and pseudo history to get at the actual truth and defending against those who bash you for doing so IS NOT Eckankar bashing. Rather, that is IMO what the wolves want you to believe.

People in this group have been demonized from the beginning for asking questions. By Eckists and Ex-Eckists.

I think one needs to be more specific when they mention Eckankar bashing. IOW, give examples.

Wrong thread, Etznab. I think you want the Is Rebazar Tarzs real? thread.

[fife]

Wrong thread, Etznab. I think you want the Is Rebazar Tarzs real? thread.

And btw. host of oceans posted that he spent 45 years in Eckankar and just quit last year. I don't know, but his two posts seemed credible and sincere to me.

Also, that when he left, his friends showed him no love. That also seems credible to me.

[fife]

And btw. host of oceans posted that he spent 45 years in Eckankar and just quit last year. I don't know, but his two posts seemed credible and sincere to me.

Also, that when he left, his friends showed him no love. That also seems credible to me.

I think what he has to say about bashing is fairly summed up in the way he ends his last post.

Maybe
next year...I'll check back in;) Stay tuned!
*one more caveat: It seems this is only replied to by a few of the same folks. I find that sad. Many Eckists are fearful to even READ anything not in line...so, carry on. I only advise to not BASH, but to enlighten with TRUTH!
Aloha

[fife]

Maybe you should really read what he posted, because truth is never arrived at through argument. Arguing solves nothing. It just amplifies the feelings that are driving the narrative.

It's just a suggestion, but really read what he said about how he found truth. I believe it's good, I believe he's sincere, and I believe it's interesting.

[Etznab]

Yeah. The only advice is to not bash.

[fife]

Yeah. The only advice is to not bash.

He actually writes about belief, belief blinders, finding the truth, and being a Spiritual Warrior.

[Henosis Sage]

On Friday, 19 June 2020 07:01:12 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Yeah. The only advice is to not bash.
>
> He actually writes about belief, belief blinders, finding the truth, and being a Spiritual Warrior.

OK, right.

So Fife is capable of paying attention to and remembering what other people write on these pages.

When he feels like it.

Good to know.

[fife]

Hi H.S.
Yes I do read them all.

[Henosis Sage]

On Friday, 19 June 2020 18:29:15 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> Hi H.S.
> Yes I do read them all.

Therefore your feigned ignorance is intentional.

A matter of conscious choice.

[fife]

Therefore your feigned ignorance is intentional.

A matter of conscious choice.

Nothing feigned or ignorant when I just don't want to stoke the bloody, stupid fire.

[Henosis Sage]

You are the Fire you ignorant disingenuous insidious creep

[Etznab]

Yes.

[fife]

7:39 AMHenosis Sage
- show quoted text -

You are the Fire you ignorant disingenuous insidious creep

9:23 AMEtznab
Yes.

Hang on to all that like grim death, then. That's surely useful.

[fife]

Jun 17Tisra Til
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:06:49 PM UTC-5, fife wrote:
> What does that even mean?
>
> Okay. Is the absolute one thing? Or one thing in it's inner form and the same thing restated when viewed from the outside. Like love and mercy?

According to nondual philosophy, inside and outside are conveniences of language that we use to try to conceptualize something outside of language. In "reality" there is no inside or outside. Just the oneness of existence.

So within that framework, "God" includes every"thing" - inside or outside, black or white, top or bottom (love - hate, truth - lie). But because we have an ego - which is what self-reflection is based on, something (most) animals don't possess - we chop reality up and anthropomorphize it, based on our own concepts of how IT should be. But in the nondual state - above the ego - there is the oneness of the ALL THAT IS, or the wholeness of existence. And so on.... imo

T.T.
So is nonduality, openness? Beyond openness? Or by definition what openness is?

[Etznab]

Self-reflection is also based on memories.

[Henosis Sage]

And History ....

But much more important than that .. Henosis means Oneness.

That's why so many people ee me as a Oneness Sage ... kinda switched on .... and trolls like fife can't handle that at all.

Give him a thread title on his "claimed" favourite subject - Spiritual Consciousness - and he hasn't a word to say on the subject.

Today he's an expert on "oneness" ... yeah right.

[fife]

Ah, yeah.

T.T.
If you're reading this, still curious. In your opinion is nonduality, openness? Beyond openness? Or by definition what openness is?

[fife]

9:32 AMHenosis Sage

- show quoted text -

And History ....

But much more important than that .. Henosis means Oneness.

That's why so many people ee me as a Oneness Sage ... kinda switched on .... and trolls like fife can't handle that at all.

Give him a thread title on his "claimed" favourite subject - Spiritual Consciousness - and he hasn't a word to say on the subject.

Today he's an expert on "oneness" ... yeah right.

Oneness isn't the same as openness, H.S. You're the identity nut job, Etznab is the mind nut job. But those are your "things".

Okay

You, from the way you post (and what else does anyone have to go on?) are, and just want to be, a materialist, politician, socialist/social perfectionist. Okay. Get your freak on. (If) that's your way, that's your way.

[Henosis Sage]

The officious little judgmental creep can't help himself can he?

"You're the identity nut job, Etznab is the mind nut job."

Like KINPOOP he knows everything and can easily put anyone he chooses into their "box" where they belong.

So insightful but a not a single word on spiritual consciousness.

BORING~!