Key Words: "Something About"

Etznab

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:46:12 AM12/5/09

to

"[....] In Paul's last words before his death, at the
Cincinnati Seminar, as recorded in the book, Diff-
iculties of Becoming The Living ECK Master, pages
134-135, he said:

A lot of the impressions that I first set out in
my first work, I'm having to go back and redo these
things and try to correct them. I'm like the fellow who
felt his way along in a college course. They told him
he had to write a book in order to keep in the work,
and he didn't know what to say. He had to go and he
had to do something, but when he did, he got it all
wrong. And by getting it all wrong, ten years from there,
he had to go back and correct his book and rewrite it,
and nobody believed him because they were believing
the first impression of what he made. And this is the
position I'm in. [....]

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm

[Nobody believed him because why? Was it they were
believing something else? Hmm.... I just wonder.]

*************************************************************

"[....] If Harold was trying to convince ECKists, as David
suggests, that Paul's words never came from the writings
of others, then why would Harold have talked about the
five stages following the death of an ideal? Why would he
have spoken about the need to accept that Paul was not
a god? Why would he have called Paul a master compiler?
Why would Harold say that he would have to do something
about the sources of Paul's writings someday? [....] While
David accuses Harold of recoiling from telling the truth, in
fact I saw the exact opposite. Harold forthrightly researched
and shared the information he found as soon as he became
aware of it. Harold explained it in his own way, from his own
viewpoint, and perhaps it was not as critical as David would
like, yet Harold continued on with a series of talks and art-
icles over the next few years. [....]"

[Based on: Doug Marman: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism,
Chap. 10]

Thank you Doug. It's good to hear that coming from an Eck
member. Much appreciation, IMO.

Also from Chapter 10:

"All religious teachings tend to crystallize over time.
This is a sign that perceptions are becoming frozen
and learning has slowed down. However, it is not just
public criticism that creates this; public praise has the
same effect.

"People like to simplify a religious teaching into dogmatic
phrases, mentalized concepts and rituals, and to file these
belief systems away into neat little boxes. So, after thous-
ands of such public statements, whether for or against a
religion, perceptions start to become frozen, and the real
spiritual essence becomes hidden."

[Doug Marman, Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]

Some very good points there, Doug. Now people can see
that not all Eckists are dim wits. Very good!

*************************************************************

IMO it would be hard for Harold Klemp, or any Eck Master
for that matter (not to mention a Chela, or just plain any-
body at all) "to do something about the sources of Paul's
writings someday" if / when people insist on believing that
it doesn't really matter and / or there simply isn't any real
need.

Paul Twitchell used material form various written sources,
among other sources, for his Eckankar writings. These are
what something needs be done about, IMO, to put them in
a proper historical context. Remember, a number of pieces
Paul Twitchell wrote about concerned world history. What
did, or did not happen in the past.

Now, if everything in the writings of Eckankar came from
Eck Masters (living or not) there would less likely be any
mistakes, IMO. However, if anything came from compiled
information, and that compiled information contained parts
of history that were biased, limited, or untrue? then only a
LIVING PERSON could ever do anything about realizing it.
That living person need not have to be exclusively a Living
Eck Master in charge of Eckankar Inc. That living person
could be anybody. Eck Member, or not. IMO.

It could be like a living person reading a book. It could be
like a living person searching the Internet. It could be just
about anybody who has the liberty to employ the knowing
faculty of Soul to sift the wheat from the chaff. So to speak.

I saw it last night when reading the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad,
what some have called the "Eckankar Bible". I saw and
I realized truth that Paul Twitchell labored to reintroduce.
I saw it like Sun shining through Clouds.

Sean

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 4:26:07 PM12/5/09

to

"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0f0e62c3-27c5-4184...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

"[....] In Paul's last words before his death, at the
Cincinnati Seminar, as recorded in the book, Diff-
iculties of Becoming The Living ECK Master, pages
134-135, he said:

A lot of the impressions that I first set out in
my first work, I'm having to go back and redo these
things and try to correct them. I'm like the fellow who
felt his way along in a college course. They told him
he had to write a book in order to keep in the work,
and he didn't know what to say. He had to go and he
had to do something, but when he did, he got it all
wrong. And by getting it all wrong, ten years from there,
he had to go back and correct his book and rewrite it,
and nobody believed him because they were believing
the first impression of what he made. And this is the
position I'm in. [....]

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm

[Nobody believed him because why? Was it they were
believing something else? Hmm.... I just wonder.]

============

SEAN :
Yes, that was one example of what I mentioned to you a little time ago
Etznab. There are also other talks from the last cpl years which from my
memory said very similar things, as Paul spoke to eckists about teh
challenges, pressures, time constraints of doing the work, much of which was
the huge amount of his writings, discourses and publishing program.

*************************************************************

"[....] If Harold was trying to convince ECKists, as David
suggests, that Paul's words never came from the writings
of others, then why would Harold have talked about the
five stages following the death of an ideal? Why would he
have spoken about the need to accept that Paul was not
a god? Why would he have called Paul a master compiler?
Why would Harold say that he would have to do something

about the sources of Paul's writings someday? [....] SNIP

I saw it last night when reading the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad,
what some have called the "Eckankar Bible". I saw and
I realized truth that Paul Twitchell labored to reintroduce.
I saw it like Sun shining through Clouds.

Etznab

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 9:37:09 PM12/5/09

to

Sean,

There was another article which contained the words
"something about" that, in IMO, bears reading at this
time. I didn't quote the article because it appeared in
the December 2006 H.I. letter.

I'd say that letter contained some of the harshest set
of words I ever read by Harold Klemp speaking about
a small number of H.I.'s in Eckankar & the way they
sometimes treat other chelas.

The words "something about" were key in that article,
IMO.

Now, if it weren't Harold Klemp who wrote that article
and someone else brought up the topic instead (like
at A.R.E.) I would almost bet they would not at all be
thanked for doing so.

Ironically, it was probably a former H.I. who posted a
copy of that letter on the Net after it came out. That
was the only way I happened to read it.

For those who aren't H.I.'s and haven't a copy of the
letter, I won't tell you where to look. If I did, someone
would probably accuse me of endorsing a "detractor"
Yahoo news group :)

Come to think of it, I believe Harold Klemp also wrote
something in the Eckankar quarterly newsletter (one
available to all members) on the same topic. Not so
sure of the date, but I'll check on that.

All this goes to show how certain Eckankar members
can get away with writing even the most critical things
about Eckankar history and members in Eck and that
is perfectly OK. Harold Klemp and Doug Marman - for
example - can write about things that other members
would be trounced on for doing so.

By "critical" I don't necessarily mean "bad", because
(IMO) there are times when "critical" is "good". Mean-
ing True, Necessary and Kind :)

There's something about this that deserves looking at.
In my humble opinion.

Etznab

Sean

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 3:06:10 AM12/6/09

to

"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:4a5308b7-c652-44af...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

Sean,

Etznab
===================

Indeed there is something about this imho too

But our lot is but to live and die, and not to reason why .... ???

:-)

Sean

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 8:09:22 AM12/6/09

to

"Sean" <he...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4b1b65f3$0$3003$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

===================

> Much of the ECK work is borne by chelas who do so out of pure
> love. There is no remuneration involved. Their spiritual blessings
> are great, far greater than receiving a pot of gold filled to the
> brim. So they represent love.
>
> The fox stands for power. He is ruthless and sees a house full
> of chicken dinners. He feeds on the weak and helpless, on those
> who cannot defend themselves.
>
> Now, what kind of guardian would it be who stood by and let the
> fox, a power seeker, satisfy his pleasure?
>
> Someone who knows what is going on, who is in a position to do
> something about it, but purposely shuts his eyes to the problem
> - out of fear, perhaps, of offending the perpetrator - - is an accomplice
> of the fox. How could he not be?
>
> I was thinking about the constant struggle that exists between love
> and power, even among ECKists. You look at such people with their
> goose-stepping tactics and you wonder about them. Sometimes
> they almost seem to be schizophrenic, with opposing or antangonistic
> sides.
>
> On one hand, they are ever so loving and helpful. But on the other,
> they are tromping on the rights of others with big muddy boots.
> Yet they can't see themselves.