Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ik Onkar, Ek ankar, Eckankar and fallacious reasoning....
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Tisra Til
Sep 30, 2017, 9:11:43 PM9/30/17
to
On a page about Julian Johnson on Wikipedia, there is a quote from his book, Masters and the Path.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Johnson
"In the literature of the Saints, God is expressed by many words, such as Swami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radhaswami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Ray, Akshar, Parameshwar, Akshar Purush, etc. All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of God, or Lord God, the highest power. Ekankar means the “One oneness,” the body of oneness. Nirankar means without body or form. Soami or Swami means the all-pervading Lord. Radha Swami ‒ Radha (soul) and Swami (Lord) ‒ the Lord of the soul ‒ Radha, when reversed, becomes dhara or current. As soul has to revert to its source, so its dhara, when reversed, when its current is turned toward God, becomes Radha. ... The whole universe is considered as one, the true Ekankar." —pages 221–222
If looked at logically, it can be seen that there is a fallacy in reasoning about who or what God is. If God can be named with more than one term, or one name, then how could it be Ekankar, "the one oneness", if there are so many names for IT, which is what in terms of esoteric philosophy is termed the Absolute? IT is called Absolute, for IT is beyond human thought, in terms of names, or vibrations, or qualities. Names, words, sounds,in fact, are part of the duality of existence, which would not be adequate to qualify the Absolute (Parabrahm), which is beyond duality. So any name or sound would not be God, or an adequate expression of God. Only silence could somewhat give an idea of what this transcendent reality is. All of these terms that Julian Johnson presents could not be God then, just human conceptions, trying to point to something other; beyond thought, beyond duality.
Many of these terms for God are included in Twitchell's "creation" known as Eckankar (trademarked). But they are used in a different manner, having different meanings attached to them.
On another Wikipedia page on the term Ik Onkar, we find the following definitons:
"Ik Onkar is the symbol that represents the One Supreme Reality[2] and is a central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy.[1] Ik (ਇੱਕ) means one and only one, who cannot be compared or contrasted with any other,[3] (ਓਅੰਕਾਰ) is the one universal ever flowing divine melody and existential unstuck never ending sound of God.
"To simplify Ik means one, Oang the creator and Kar means the creation. So the creator and his creation are not different and He the supreme creator resides everywhere and in everything.
"The sound is Oang (anhad naad) and Kar is the never ending continuation of Oang sound. This melody manifests in billions of galaxies and universes and leads to protect and preserve. Ultimately, everything gets merged back into this sound; this has happened countless times before.
"The Onkar of Sikhism is related to Om in Hinduism.[10] Sikhs disagree that Ik Onkar is same as Om.[10] Onkar is, states Wazir Singh, a "variation of Om (Aum) of the ancient Indian scriptures (with a slight change in its orthography), implying the seed-force that evolves as the universe".[11] Guru Nanak wrote a poem entitled Oankar in which, states Doniger, he "attributed the origin and sense of speech to the Divinity, who is thus the Om-maker".[10]
"At a later stage, with the evolution of Indian philosophic thought, the sages of Upanishads pronounced it (OM or AUM) as an adequate symbol of the Absolute Transcendent Reality, Brahman. It is considered as the unity of all sound to which all matters and energy are reduced in their primordial form, hence fit as a symbol for Atman (soul) or Brahman, the Supreme Being, which is the unity of all existence. These - and possibly some other - considerations led the Vedic sages to accord to Om the highest Divine reverence and worship.
"So Guru Nanak's revealed Scripture place numerical figure '1' before Onkar thus enhancing his firm conviction in the unity of God. Its main importance and underlying significance lies in the fact that one is not represented by 'one' in words, but by a numerical figure '1'; thus completely eliminating any possibility of words being given different meaning. It was Guru Nanak's own inspired vision that transformed AUM into Ek-Onkar representing the Supreme Being, the Sole Absolute Eternal Reality which, while manifesting itself in multiplicity as Onkar, is still in its essence 'Sole and Absolute'; Transcendent as well as Immanent. Impersonal is also Personal in Ek-Onkar.
"By the large, Sikhs worship 'Waheguru' as God's name for constant remembrance by repetition aloud or Sotto Voce. In Sikh parlance, this is known as 'Naam Simran'. There are, however, many a Sikh who also meditate upon and use Ek-Onkar for 'Naam Simran'. Like 'Waheguru' this is also considered to be a powerful Mantra for achieving spiritual progress and Divine Grace for final emancipation of the individual soul."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_Onkar
Seen from this perspective, the Sikh tradition seems to have taken the ancient Sanskrit Hindu name, sound, vibration OM-AUM as the expression of the Absolute Brahman (the All That Is), and given it a slight change to Ik Onkar, to give the idea that the one and the many, or the transcendent and immanent, are in fact one Reality (or the two sides of a single Reality). The question is, "did the offshoots or extensions of the Sikh religion, like the modern Sant Mat, Radhasoami, and Eckankar paths, give the same meanings to these terms, or changed slightly (or greatly) the meaning of terms, like the Sikh did with the Hindu OM or AUM, regarding the designation of Deity, God, Parabrahm, the Absolute?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Johnson
"In the literature of the Saints, God is expressed by many words, such as Swami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radhaswami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Ray, Akshar, Parameshwar, Akshar Purush, etc. All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of God, or Lord God, the highest power. Ekankar means the “One oneness,” the body of oneness. Nirankar means without body or form. Soami or Swami means the all-pervading Lord. Radha Swami ‒ Radha (soul) and Swami (Lord) ‒ the Lord of the soul ‒ Radha, when reversed, becomes dhara or current. As soul has to revert to its source, so its dhara, when reversed, when its current is turned toward God, becomes Radha. ... The whole universe is considered as one, the true Ekankar." —pages 221–222
If looked at logically, it can be seen that there is a fallacy in reasoning about who or what God is. If God can be named with more than one term, or one name, then how could it be Ekankar, "the one oneness", if there are so many names for IT, which is what in terms of esoteric philosophy is termed the Absolute? IT is called Absolute, for IT is beyond human thought, in terms of names, or vibrations, or qualities. Names, words, sounds,in fact, are part of the duality of existence, which would not be adequate to qualify the Absolute (Parabrahm), which is beyond duality. So any name or sound would not be God, or an adequate expression of God. Only silence could somewhat give an idea of what this transcendent reality is. All of these terms that Julian Johnson presents could not be God then, just human conceptions, trying to point to something other; beyond thought, beyond duality.
Many of these terms for God are included in Twitchell's "creation" known as Eckankar (trademarked). But they are used in a different manner, having different meanings attached to them.
On another Wikipedia page on the term Ik Onkar, we find the following definitons:
"Ik Onkar is the symbol that represents the One Supreme Reality[2] and is a central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy.[1] Ik (ਇੱਕ) means one and only one, who cannot be compared or contrasted with any other,[3] (ਓਅੰਕਾਰ) is the one universal ever flowing divine melody and existential unstuck never ending sound of God.
"To simplify Ik means one, Oang the creator and Kar means the creation. So the creator and his creation are not different and He the supreme creator resides everywhere and in everything.
"The sound is Oang (anhad naad) and Kar is the never ending continuation of Oang sound. This melody manifests in billions of galaxies and universes and leads to protect and preserve. Ultimately, everything gets merged back into this sound; this has happened countless times before.
"The Onkar of Sikhism is related to Om in Hinduism.[10] Sikhs disagree that Ik Onkar is same as Om.[10] Onkar is, states Wazir Singh, a "variation of Om (Aum) of the ancient Indian scriptures (with a slight change in its orthography), implying the seed-force that evolves as the universe".[11] Guru Nanak wrote a poem entitled Oankar in which, states Doniger, he "attributed the origin and sense of speech to the Divinity, who is thus the Om-maker".[10]
"At a later stage, with the evolution of Indian philosophic thought, the sages of Upanishads pronounced it (OM or AUM) as an adequate symbol of the Absolute Transcendent Reality, Brahman. It is considered as the unity of all sound to which all matters and energy are reduced in their primordial form, hence fit as a symbol for Atman (soul) or Brahman, the Supreme Being, which is the unity of all existence. These - and possibly some other - considerations led the Vedic sages to accord to Om the highest Divine reverence and worship.
"So Guru Nanak's revealed Scripture place numerical figure '1' before Onkar thus enhancing his firm conviction in the unity of God. Its main importance and underlying significance lies in the fact that one is not represented by 'one' in words, but by a numerical figure '1'; thus completely eliminating any possibility of words being given different meaning. It was Guru Nanak's own inspired vision that transformed AUM into Ek-Onkar representing the Supreme Being, the Sole Absolute Eternal Reality which, while manifesting itself in multiplicity as Onkar, is still in its essence 'Sole and Absolute'; Transcendent as well as Immanent. Impersonal is also Personal in Ek-Onkar.
"By the large, Sikhs worship 'Waheguru' as God's name for constant remembrance by repetition aloud or Sotto Voce. In Sikh parlance, this is known as 'Naam Simran'. There are, however, many a Sikh who also meditate upon and use Ek-Onkar for 'Naam Simran'. Like 'Waheguru' this is also considered to be a powerful Mantra for achieving spiritual progress and Divine Grace for final emancipation of the individual soul."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_Onkar
Seen from this perspective, the Sikh tradition seems to have taken the ancient Sanskrit Hindu name, sound, vibration OM-AUM as the expression of the Absolute Brahman (the All That Is), and given it a slight change to Ik Onkar, to give the idea that the one and the many, or the transcendent and immanent, are in fact one Reality (or the two sides of a single Reality). The question is, "did the offshoots or extensions of the Sikh religion, like the modern Sant Mat, Radhasoami, and Eckankar paths, give the same meanings to these terms, or changed slightly (or greatly) the meaning of terms, like the Sikh did with the Hindu OM or AUM, regarding the designation of Deity, God, Parabrahm, the Absolute?
Etznab
Oct 1, 2017, 9:01:03 AM10/1/17
to
Many, but not all. Especially when Paul and Eckankar duplicates, copies text from one place and adds it to another. Example:
The following is based on The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, Copyright 1939, Sixteenth Edition 1997, Chap. Five: God and the Grand Hierarchy of the Universe, pp. 242-245.
God and the Grand Hierarchy of the Universe
[...]
4. NAMES OF THE SUPREME BEING
In the literature of the saints, God is expressed by many words, such as Soami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radha Soami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Rai, Akshar, Parameshwar, Akshar Purush, etc. All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the saints think of God, or Lord God, the highest power. Ekankar means the 'one oneness', the body of oneness. Nirankar means 'without body or form'. Soami or Swami means the 'all-pervading lord'. Radha Soami — radha, 'soul', and soami, 'lord' — 'the lord of the soul'. The word radha, in Hindi, when reversed becomes dhara. This means 'current' or 'stream of energy', the attribute of the soul. When the dhara is reversed, when it turns upwards away from the creation, it becomes radha, the soul.
Akal means 'timeless'. Nirala means 'peerless', having none like him. Anami means 'without name'. Agam means 'inaccessible'. Sat Purush, 'true lord', is the really existing Lord as distinguished from all hypothetical gods. That which is not sat does not really exist. Sat means 'truth', 'reality', 'existence'. Hence the fundamental idea of truth is existence. The untrue does not exist; the true does. Hence truth and existence are synonymous terms. Purush implies 'being', and 'being' implies 'creative energy' — predominating and presiding Lord, the source of creative energy. Prabhu means 'lord, having power and control'. Prabhswami means 'all-pervading lord, having power'. Hari Rai means the 'lord who has real power', the actual king of all, like Sat Purush. This is used in contradistinction to Dharam Rai, the negative power, who controls the Three Worlds. It implies law and order. Dharam is 'law', 'order', 'system', and it is used also to designate religion or any religious system. Hari Rai is Sat Purush, or Akal Purush, while Dharam Rai is Kal Purush, Kal, or Brahm.
The whole universe is considered as one, the true Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also coexistent with God — infinite, unlimited. Hence, the Soami is nirankar, that is, formless. As such, he is without personality, hence without name. He cannot be said to be 'anywhere' as he is everywhere. Since he is everywhere, all and everything, he must be impersonal. Of course, he may assume any number of forms, but none of these forms embrace his entire being any more than one sun embraces the sum total of physical matter.
When Soami limits himself to some extent, however slightly, he becomes Agam Purush. If a little more limited, he is Alakh Purush, and when he takes a definite form for the purpose of administering the affairs of the universe, he then becomes Sat Purush, or Sat Nam. Sat Nam then becomes the first definitely limited manifestation of the supreme one. But he is not limited, except as to form. Sat Nam, 'true name', is that which defines his individuality, and points definitely to the first personal manifestation of the infinite one.
The names of the supreme being in other languages besides the Sanskrit and Hindi are as many as are the ideas of him. God is an Anglo-Saxon adaptation of 'good'. He is the chief good or the sum total of good. Deus is the Latin name, signifying something like 'supreme emperor'. Theos is the Greek appellation, meaning the chief of those august powers who sat upon Mount Olympus and ruled the world. Adonai Elohim or Yahveh are some of the Hebrew names assigned to the god who was first a tribal deity of the Jews, but was later proclaimed Lord over all gods and worlds. He was the supreme lawgiver, the commander of all the armies of Israel. He was the majestic warrior whose wrath was so much to be feared. This is the God to whom Sir Richard Burton refers when he writes in his Kasidah of Abdul el Yezdi: "Yahveh, Adon, or Elohim, the God that smites, the man of war!" Fancy the psychological reaction of tender childhood under the teaching which daily held up such a god to them! No wonder Kingsley, in Alton Locke, says: "Our God, or rather, our gods, until we were twelve years old were hell, the rod, the ten commandments, and public opinion."
[...]
The saints are not sticklers for names. They frankly concede that the supreme one is anami, 'nameless', and so they say, in substance, "Take your choice as to names."
There is Allah the merciful, of Islam, who sent his last and greatest Prophet, Mohammed, to gather into one army the desert tribes and break up all their idols. There are Indra and Varuna, the ancient gods who shine out in great majesty among the hosts of gods mentioned in Vedic literature. There are Brahm, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh, and a host of others, all gods of the sacred books. There are Akshar, Parameshwar, Purush, and Purushottam, Sanskrit names for the creative and governing power. Zarathustra spoke of Ormuzd, and the Norseman spoke of Thor.
Om is the Sanskrit sound symbol for the supreme one. The North American Indians speak of Manitou, the father of them all, who ruled over all the tribes.
[...]
The saints have given many names to the supreme being, according to the country in which they lived and the language used by them. But all saints recognize that no name is adequate. No name can ever describe God or convey any fair conception of his attributes. It is not good to contend for a name. What is the difference whether we say Radha Soami or Ram or Allah? It is quite immaterial whether we say pani (Urdu), eua (French), amma (Cherokee Indian), hudor (Greek), aqua (Latin) or water. They all mean exactly the same.
[... .] [Based on: pp. 242-245 The Path of the Masters, Sixteenth Edition 1997]
*Links:
http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters#page/n1/mode/2up
Next is a part of the Eckankar version with Rebazar Tarzs as the speaker.
[...]
"In the literature of the sacred, this divine formless spirit is expressed by many names, such as, ECKANKAR, Nirankar, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Akashar, Paramakshar, Purusha.
"All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of the SUGMAD, or Lord God, the highest power.
"ECKANKAR means the one oneness, the body of oneness. All, or Totality - this is the secret name of God or the SUGMAD which will be creeping into these talks between us as I go deeper into this philosophy.
"Nirankar means without body or form. Advaita, Soami or Swami means the all-pervading Lord.
"Akal means timeless: Nirala, peerless, having none like Him; Anami, without name: Agam, inaccessible. Sat Purusha, true Lord, the real Lord, as distinguished from all hypothetical gods. That which is not Sat does not really exist. Sat means truth, reality, existence. Hence the fundamental idea of truth is existence. The untrue does not exist; the true does. Truth and existence are synonymous terms. Purusha implies being, and being implies creative energy, the predominating and presiding Lord, the source of creative energy. Prabhu means Lord, having power and control.
"Prabhswami means all-pervading Lord, having power. Akashar means the Lord who has real power, the actual king of all, like Sat Purusha. This is used in contradistinction to Dharam Ray, the negative power, who controls the Three Worlds. It implies law and order. Remember the more law and order there is in a society, the more negative it is - the more it is under the control of the Dharam Ray. Dharam is law, order, system, and it is used to also designate religion, or any religious system.
"Akashar is sat Purusha, or Akal Purusha, while Dharam Ray is Kal* Purusha, or Kal or Brahm.
"The whole universe is considered as One, the true ECKANKAR. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also coexistent with God, infinite, unlimited. Hence, the SUGMAD is Nirankar, i.e. formless.
"As such, he is without personality, without name. He cannot be said to be anywhere, as he is everywhere. Since He is everywhere, all and everything, he must be impersonal. Of course, He may assume any number of forms; but none of these forms embrace his entire being, any more than one sun embraces the sum total of physical matter.
"When the SUGMAD limits ITSELF to some extent, however slightly, IT becomes Agam Purusha. If a little more limited, Alakh Purusha, and when IT takes a definite form for the purpose of administering the affairs of the universe, the SUGMAD becomes Sat Purusha, or Sat Nam.
"Sat Nam is the first, definitely limited, manifestation of the Supreme Being. But IT is not limited, except to form only. Sat Nam, true name, is that which defines ITS individuality, and points definitely to the first personal manifestation of the Infinite One.
"The names of the SUGMAD, in other languages than the Sanskrit and Hindi, are as many as are the ideas of IT. God is Anglo-Saxon adaptation of good. IT is the chief good or the sum total of God. Deus is the Latin name, signifying something like supreme emperor. Theos is the Greek appellation, meaning the chief of those august powers who sat upon Mount Olympus and ruled the world.
"Adonai, or Elohim, or Yahveh are some of the Hebrew names assigned to the god who was first a tribal deity of the Jews, but later proclaimed lord over all gods and worlds. He was the supreme law-giver, the commander of all the armies of Israel. He was the majestic warrior whose wrath was so much to be feared. Love was not in his makeup until later.
"We have others, for example, Allah, the Merciful, of Islam. Varuna, the greatest of all ancient Hindu gods, outstanding in the Vedas. Brahm, Rama, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and a host of others in the Indian sacred books.
"Zarathustra spoke of Ormuzd and the Norseman had his Thor. The North American Indian worshipped their Manitou and each primitive tribe and nation had a being to adorn, admire, and to protect them.
"The ECK travelers know the great SUGMAD by many names. For names are only labels. They care so little for the knowledge of who IT might be, but are seeking to know what IT is and where IT is found."
* * *
"He finished, stood up and looked around. Outside the mountains had turned a pinkish color and then green. It was time to go and I left knowing that on the morning, Rebazar Tarzs would start again on his discussions of the Far Country.
"I would be back."
*Links:
http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp/farcountry017342mbp_djvu.txt
http://www.archive.org/stream/farcountry017342mbp#page/n1/mode/2up
Let's look at a couple comparisons.
Johnson:
In the literature of the saints, God is expressed by many words, such as Soami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radha Soami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Rai, Akshar, Parameshwar, Akshar Purush, etc. All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the saints think of God, or Lord God, the highest power. Ekankar means the 'one oneness', the body of oneness. Nirankar means 'without body or form'. Soami or Swami means the 'all-pervading lord'. Radha Soami — radha, 'soul', and soami, 'lord' — 'the lord of the soul'. The word radha, in Hindi, when reversed becomes dhara. This means 'current' or 'stream of energy', the attribute of the soul. When the dhara is reversed, when it turns upwards away from the creation, it becomes radha, the soul.
Rebazar Tarzs (according to Twitchell):
"In the literature of the sacred, this divine formless spirit is expressed by many names, such as, ECKANKAR, Nirankar, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Akashar, Paramakshar, Purusha.
"All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of the SUGMAD, or Lord God, the highest power.
"ECKANKAR means the one oneness, the body of oneness. All, or Totality - this is the secret name of God or the SUGMAD which will be creeping into these talks between us as I go deeper into this philosophy."
Johnson:
Ekankar means the 'one oneness', the body of oneness.
Rebazar Tarzs (according to Twitchell):
"ECKANKAR means the one oneness, the body of oneness."
Evidently, no different meaning there.
Johnson:
The names of the supreme being in other languages besides the Sanskrit and Hindi are as many as are the ideas of him. God is an Anglo-Saxon adaptation of 'good'. He is the chief good or the sum total of good. Deus is the Latin name, signifying something like 'supreme emperor'. Theos is the Greek appellation, meaning the chief of those august powers who sat upon Mount Olympus and ruled the world. Adonai Elohim or Yahveh are some of the Hebrew names assigned to the god who was first a tribal deity of the Jews, but was later proclaimed Lord over all gods and worlds. He was the supreme lawgiver, the commander of all the armies of Israel. He was the majestic warrior whose wrath was so much to be feared. ... ."
Rebazar Tarzs (according to Twitchell):
"The names of the SUGMAD, in other languages than the Sanskrit and Hindi, are as many as are the ideas of IT. God is Anglo-Saxon adaptation of good. IT is the chief good or the sum total of God. Deus is the Latin name, signifying something like supreme emperor. Theos is the Greek appellation, meaning the chief of those august powers who sat upon Mount Olympus and ruled the world.
"Adonai, or Elohim, or Yahveh are some of the Hebrew names assigned to the god who was first a tribal deity of the Jews, but later proclaimed lord over all gods and worlds. He was the supreme law-giver, the commander of all the armies of Israel. He was the majestic warrior whose wrath was so much to be feared. Love was not in his makeup until later."
Anybody who has read the two books can see that, in many places, the meanings are the same; it's what happens when you copy verbatim the words of others and it matters not if you try to hide it by changing the name of the source.
Twitchell and Eckankar probably "changed" things like Duane the Great Writer and others who USED the creations of other people to make their own books. Twitchell copied from Johnson and others because (according to Bluth) the author said it better than he (Twitchell) could. So when Duane copies from Eckankar books and Twitchell, who copied from others, it perpetuates the act like weeds droppings seeds in the garden and growing more of the same (because Duane also claims the source - in many examples - to be Rebazar Tarzs).
The problem is not the text and what it talks about, because people read lots of books and can choose whether they believe the author, or not. The problem, IMHO, is the SOURCE that Twitchell and Eckankar "propagated". They described a master, a Tibetan Lama said to be over 500 years old who is the Torchbearer for Eckankar. This, IMO, is the fault and the problem because it changes the text by associating it with an author supposedly spiritually adept and closer to God as if once appointed by God to be a messenger and living master.
The Bible contains a lot of words too. And again, I submit that it's not so much the words that are the fault and the problem. IMO the fault and problem is when the words are credited to God, as if Holy and written by God.
The pattern here appears to be an embellishment of the truth by an act of man (and / or women) knowingly creating pseudo history and religion to serve their own purpose.
Etznab
Oct 1, 2017, 9:13:50 AM10/1/17
to
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to understand what is real.[2] Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, hearing voices that others do not hear, [... .]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
Tisra Til
Oct 1, 2017, 10:47:14 PM10/1/17
to
On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:01:03 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> When Soami limits himself to some extent, however slightly, he becomes Agam Purush. If a little more limited, he is Alakh Purush, and when he takes a definite form for the purpose of administering the affairs of the universe, he then becomes Sat Purush, or Sat Nam. Sat Nam then becomes the first definitely limited manifestation of the supreme one. But he is not limited, except as to form. Sat Nam, 'true name', is that which defines his individuality, and points definitely to the first personal manifestation of the infinite one.
>
> The names of the supreme being in other languages besides the Sanskrit and Hindi are as many as are the ideas of him. God is an Anglo-Saxon adaptation of 'good'. He is the chief good or the sum total of good. Deus is the Latin name, signifying something like 'supreme emperor'. Theos is the Greek appellation, meaning the chief of those august powers who sat upon Mount Olympus and ruled the world. Adonai Elohim or Yahveh are some of the Hebrew names assigned to the god who was first a tribal deity of the Jews, but was later proclaimed Lord over all gods and worlds. He was the supreme lawgiver, the commander of all the armies of Israel. He was the majestic warrior whose wrath was so much to be feared. This is the God to whom Sir Richard Burton refers when he writes in his Kasidah of Abdul el Yezdi: "Yahveh, Adon, or Elohim, the God that smites, the man of war!" Fancy the psychological reaction of tender childhood under the teaching which daily held up such a god to them! No wonder Kingsley, in Alton Locke, says: "Our God, or rather, our gods, until we were twelve years old were hell, the rod, the ten commandments, and public opinion."
>
> [...]
>
> The saints are not sticklers for names. They frankly concede that the supreme one is anami, 'nameless', and so they say, in substance, "Take your choice as to names."
>
> There is Allah the merciful, of Islam, who sent his last and greatest Prophet, Mohammed, to gather into one army the desert tribes and break up all their idols. There are Indra and Varuna, the ancient gods who shine out in great majesty among the hosts of gods mentioned in Vedic literature. There are Brahm, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh, and a host of others, all gods of the sacred books. There are Akshar, Parameshwar, Purush, and Purushottam, Sanskrit names for the creative and governing power. Zarathustra spoke of Ormuzd, and the Norseman spoke of Thor.
>
> Om is the Sanskrit sound symbol for the supreme one. The North American Indians speak of Manitou, the father of them all, who ruled over all the tribes.
>
> [...]
>
> The saints have given many names to the supreme being, according to the country in which they lived and the language used by them. But all saints recognize that no name is adequate. No name can ever describe God or convey any fair conception of his attributes. It is not good to contend for a name. What is the difference whether we say Radha Soami or Ram or Allah? It is quite immaterial whether we say pani (Urdu), eua (French), amma (Cherokee Indian), hudor (Greek), aqua (Latin) or water. They all mean exactly the same.
>
> [... .] [Based on: pp. 242-245 The Path of the Masters, Sixteenth Edition 1997]
>
> *Links:
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
> http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters#page/n1/mode/2up
>
> Next is a part of the Eckankar version with Rebazar Tarzs as the speaker.
>
> [...]
>
> "In the literature of the sacred, this divine formless spirit is expressed by many names, such as, ECKANKAR, Nirankar, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Akashar, Paramakshar, Purusha.
> "All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of the SUGMAD, or Lord God, the highest power.
> "ECKANKAR means the one oneness, the body of oneness. All, or Totality - this is the secret name of God or the SUGMAD which will be creeping into these talks between us as I go deeper into this philosophy.
> "Nirankar means without body or form. Advaita, Soami or Swami means the all-pervading Lord.
> "Akal means timeless: Nirala, peerless, having none like Him; Anami, without name: Agam, inaccessible. Sat Purusha, true Lord, the real Lord, as distinguished from all hypothetical gods. That which is not Sat does not really exist. Sat means truth, reality, existence. Hence the fundamental idea of truth is existence. The untrue does not exist; the true does. Truth and existence are synonymous terms. Purusha implies being, and being implies creative energy, the predominating and presiding Lord, the source of creative energy. Prabhu means Lord, having power and control.
> "Prabhswami means all-pervading Lord, having power. Akashar means the Lord who has real power, the actual king of all, like Sat Purusha. This is used in contradistinction to Dharam Ray, the negative power, who controls the Three Worlds. It implies law and order. Remember the more law and order there is in a society, the more negative it is - the more it is under the control of the Dharam Ray. Dharam is law, order, system, and it is used to also designate religion, or any religious system.
> "Akashar is sat Purusha, or Akal Purusha, while Dharam Ray is Kal* Purusha, or Kal or Brahm.
> "The whole universe is considered as One, the true ECKANKAR. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also coexistent with God, infinite, unlimited. Hence, the SUGMAD is Nirankar, i.e. formless. The whole universe is considered as one, the true Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also coexistent with God — infinite, unlimited. Hence, the Soami is nirankar, that is, formless. As such, he is without personality, hence without name. He cannot be said to be 'anywhere' as he is everywhere. Since he is everywhere, all and everything, he must be impersonal. Of course, he may assume any number of forms, but none of these forms embrace his entire being any more than one sun embraces the sum total of physical matter.
>
> The names of the supreme being in other languages besides the Sanskrit and Hindi are as many as are the ideas of him. God is an Anglo-Saxon adaptation of 'good'. He is the chief good or the sum total of good. Deus is the Latin name, signifying something like 'supreme emperor'. Theos is the Greek appellation, meaning the chief of those august powers who sat upon Mount Olympus and ruled the world. Adonai Elohim or Yahveh are some of the Hebrew names assigned to the god who was first a tribal deity of the Jews, but was later proclaimed Lord over all gods and worlds. He was the supreme lawgiver, the commander of all the armies of Israel. He was the majestic warrior whose wrath was so much to be feared. This is the God to whom Sir Richard Burton refers when he writes in his Kasidah of Abdul el Yezdi: "Yahveh, Adon, or Elohim, the God that smites, the man of war!" Fancy the psychological reaction of tender childhood under the teaching which daily held up such a god to them! No wonder Kingsley, in Alton Locke, says: "Our God, or rather, our gods, until we were twelve years old were hell, the rod, the ten commandments, and public opinion."
>
> [...]
>
> The saints are not sticklers for names. They frankly concede that the supreme one is anami, 'nameless', and so they say, in substance, "Take your choice as to names."
>
> There is Allah the merciful, of Islam, who sent his last and greatest Prophet, Mohammed, to gather into one army the desert tribes and break up all their idols. There are Indra and Varuna, the ancient gods who shine out in great majesty among the hosts of gods mentioned in Vedic literature. There are Brahm, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh, and a host of others, all gods of the sacred books. There are Akshar, Parameshwar, Purush, and Purushottam, Sanskrit names for the creative and governing power. Zarathustra spoke of Ormuzd, and the Norseman spoke of Thor.
>
> Om is the Sanskrit sound symbol for the supreme one. The North American Indians speak of Manitou, the father of them all, who ruled over all the tribes.
>
> [...]
>
> The saints have given many names to the supreme being, according to the country in which they lived and the language used by them. But all saints recognize that no name is adequate. No name can ever describe God or convey any fair conception of his attributes. It is not good to contend for a name. What is the difference whether we say Radha Soami or Ram or Allah? It is quite immaterial whether we say pani (Urdu), eua (French), amma (Cherokee Indian), hudor (Greek), aqua (Latin) or water. They all mean exactly the same.
>
> [... .] [Based on: pp. 242-245 The Path of the Masters, Sixteenth Edition 1997]
>
> *Links:
>
> http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters_djvu.txt
> http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePathOfTheMasters/ThePathOfTheMasters#page/n1/mode/2up
>
> Next is a part of the Eckankar version with Rebazar Tarzs as the speaker.
>
> [...]
>
> "In the literature of the sacred, this divine formless spirit is expressed by many names, such as, ECKANKAR, Nirankar, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Akashar, Paramakshar, Purusha.
> "All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of the SUGMAD, or Lord God, the highest power.
> "ECKANKAR means the one oneness, the body of oneness. All, or Totality - this is the secret name of God or the SUGMAD which will be creeping into these talks between us as I go deeper into this philosophy.
> "Nirankar means without body or form. Advaita, Soami or Swami means the all-pervading Lord.
> "Akal means timeless: Nirala, peerless, having none like Him; Anami, without name: Agam, inaccessible. Sat Purusha, true Lord, the real Lord, as distinguished from all hypothetical gods. That which is not Sat does not really exist. Sat means truth, reality, existence. Hence the fundamental idea of truth is existence. The untrue does not exist; the true does. Truth and existence are synonymous terms. Purusha implies being, and being implies creative energy, the predominating and presiding Lord, the source of creative energy. Prabhu means Lord, having power and control.
> "Prabhswami means all-pervading Lord, having power. Akashar means the Lord who has real power, the actual king of all, like Sat Purusha. This is used in contradistinction to Dharam Ray, the negative power, who controls the Three Worlds. It implies law and order. Remember the more law and order there is in a society, the more negative it is - the more it is under the control of the Dharam Ray. Dharam is law, order, system, and it is used to also designate religion, or any religious system.
> "Akashar is sat Purusha, or Akal Purusha, while Dharam Ray is Kal* Purusha, or Kal or Brahm.
"... Akal means 'timeless'. Nirala means 'peerless', having none like him. Anami means 'without name'. Agam means 'inaccessible'. Sat Purush, 'true lord', is the really existing Lord as distinguished from all hypothetical gods. That which is not sat does not really exist. Sat means 'truth', 'reality', 'existence'. Hence the fundamental idea of truth is existence. The untrue does not exist; the true does. Hence truth and existence are synonymous terms. Purush implies 'being', and 'being' implies 'creative energy' — predominating and presiding Lord, the source of creative energy. Prabhu means 'lord, having power and control'. Prabhswami means 'all-pervading lord, having power'. Hari Rai means the 'lord who has real power', the actual king of all, like Sat Purush. This is used in contradistinction to Dharam Rai, the negative power, who controls the Three Worlds. It implies law and order. Dharam is 'law', 'order', 'system', and it is used also to designate religion or any religious system. Hari Rai is Sat Purush, or Akal Purush, while Dharam Rai is Kal Purush, Kal, or Brahm.
".... The whole universe is considered as one, the true Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also coexistent with God — infinite, unlimited. Hence, the Soami is nirankar, that is, formless. As such, he is without personality, hence without name. He cannot be said to be 'anywhere' as he is everywhere. Since he is everywhere, all and everything, he must be impersonal. Of course, he may assume any number of forms, but none of these forms embrace his entire being any more than one sun embraces the sum total of physical matter."
I actually agree with these definitions and qualities of the Absolute - or God, as he calls it. I only object to the use of the term He, as that presents an anthropomorphic view of a Creator, which obviously isn't the case, and the statement that He can assume any form. How could something infinite and eternal that includes the whole of existence become any form? More fallacious reasoning, IMO.
Don't know why he didn't just use the term IT, or TAT, as the Hindus call God, Brahman. However, Hinduism makes a distinction between the Creator God Brahma with the Absolute consciousness Brahman, or Parabrahm, which is supposed to be All seen and unseen. Brahma is the creator god, which is itself synonymous with the Universal Mind, which Eckankar claims is what Hindus and other spiritual paths worship as "God." I disagree with that. It is understood in just about any nondual tradition (which I have researched) that the Creator is not the Absolute consciousness, but only an aspect of It. An emanation of It, but not It in It's fullness. The creator god is the Universal Mind; don't remember if Twitch used that term.
Interestingly, I found this difference between Path and the Masters and Far Country that you included.
Masters and Path: "Zarathustra spoke of Ormuzd, and the Norseman spoke of Thor. Om is the Sanskrit sound symbol for the supreme one. The North American Indians speak of Manitou, the father of them all, who ruled over all the tribes."
Rebazar: "Zarathustra spoke of Ormuzd and the Norseman had his Thor. The North American Indian worshipped their Manitou and each primitive tribe and nation had a being to adorn, admire, and to protect them.
RT - Twitch conveniently left out: "OM is the Sanskrit sound symbol for the supreme one." Very interesting! To say that would have dismantled the whole Twitchellian system if admitted. OM has a much lower designation in Eckankar. The sound of the mental plane, with Omkar (similar to Onkar of Sikhism) as ruler of that plane. Wonder what happened there? Did the Twitch decide to go the Sufi way after reading that and start proclaiming HU as the sound of the supreme one, instead of OM-AUM as the sound of IT?
I haven't researched the Sikh religion, but am pretty well versed in Hindu philosophy and Tibetan Buddhism. The Sikhs use a lot of Sanskrit terminology. Makes me wonder why Sikhism broke off from Hinduism proper, and how they differ. Did it involve a similar thing that happened with the offshoots of Sikhism, like Sant Mat, Radhasoami, Eckankar, and what branched off of Eckankar?
I read a little of Masters and the Path online, and Johnson really elevates what he viewed as masters-saints as being above anyone in any other religious-spiritual path-tradition. To the point of idolizing. I wonder if there is anyone who has actually seen and talked to these masters-saints he claimed to know, and knows their names and where they live, or written any books about them. I would certainly be curious. Never heard of them mentioned anywhere before, and I have read many, many books on Eastern spirituality, and the esoteric and occult.
IMO, the message is as important as - maybe even more than - the messenger. I've never been into personality worship, though. To me it doesn't matter. Most of what I have gathered has come from books. A true seeker should use their critical thinking faculty - and intuition - to determine whether the message is true or not; and, by extension, the messenger. It stands to reason that if there is a problem with the message, then there is a problem with the messenger. Personality worship, or dependence, can definitely get in the way of perceiving the truthfulness or falseness of the message.
It does require deep thought and contemplation on whatever is claimed as divinely inspired, transcendental knowledge. "The kingdom of heaven is within", someone said. Finding that kingdom should be the goal of the seeker of truth. Doesn't require going out of the body (OOBE), or relying on a guru in his astral body whispering in your mind during meditation or dreams. Rely on the Self (Atman), which is one in essence with Brahman (Absolute, Spirit; the main message of Hinduism). Pretty simple, really.
Henosis Sage
Oct 5, 2017, 1:55:58 AM10/5/17
to
RE: The question is, "did the offshoots or extensions of the Sikh religion, like the modern Sant Mat, Radhasoami, and Eckankar paths, give the same meanings to these terms, or changed slightly (or greatly) the meaning of terms, like the Sikh did with the Hindu OM or AUM, regarding the designation of Deity, God, Parabrahm, the Absolute? "
YES.
As someone once said "It's all poetry"
native tongues language and semantics gets everything muddled.
what the Sikhs say today or even in the 1600s is not necessarily what Guru Nanak meant by the words he used. Same goes for Shiv dayal Singh ... it's minefield the wording and meanings, and eventually I came ot a point to discard it all -- except for communicating in the real world with real genuine people about such "texts" and "beliefs"
cheers sean
Henosis Sage
Oct 5, 2017, 2:04:15 AM10/5/17
to
Hi TT
RE : "I haven't researched the Sikh religion,"
from what I have gleaned about that history, Guru nanak's life is the most important as he started it.
He had one foot in Islam (more likely Sufi Islam) and Hinduism .. via his parents relatives and where he lived.
He stuck out and basically blended the two into a new whole cloth. cherry picked what he was INSPIRED to keep and discarded the rest .... or he was merely mad as a hatter too. No one knows about these things it's too long ago now.
When Shiv dayal Singh showed up in 1861 as the new "guru" in the Punjab .... he mixed Sufi islam with Sihkism and dash of Hinduism to arrive at Radhasoami.
See the pattern here yet? (big smile)
And yes Shiv Dayal Singh was definitely OUT THERE on the edge of reality his entire life.
It all depends on whether or not one buys into the "the saints blessed him" and the light/sound of god "inspired" him into being anew man a god man or if he was simply "off the planet" without two feet on the ground.
Now look at twitchell, Harold klemp and all the rest of these guys .... Kinpoop and JR etc etc etc etc etc ,....
MEANWHILE, rarely does someone come along with their feet on the ground who actually can traverse TWO worlds of being and remain sane and rational .... people like this say things like : " Pretty simple, really. "
That's as rare as hens teeth on the planet Pluto my friend.
Etznab gets it ... cannot think of another bar my children and a few close friends. ;-)
Message has been deleted
0 new messages