Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1678Re: True, Necessary, Kind? RePost from Truth Seeker

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Oct 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,
      I thought that I would revisit this topic and share the "path of the
      trinity" definition om page 159 in Klemp's Eckankar LexiCon. The
      quote is:

      "path of the trinity. Three questions to ask oneself when in doubt
      about an action: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?"

      It's also interesting to note that neither PATH or TRINITY are
      capitalized. Klemp, it seems, relies upon the recycled and
      repackaged plagiarism of Twitchell's for the foundation of Eckankar
      while adding his own personal twist through his stupid stories.


      Mishmisha wrote:

      TS has a new post on his BB, 4/30/2006, "Weekly Posting: Response to
      Q Whan on Plagiarism and Other Matters" which goes along in part
      with this other repost (below) from the Truth Seeker Message Board,
      regarding PT's plagiarism of the Buddha quote.

      Ford Johnson writes:

      "I have maintained in Confessions that I was able to overcome the
      charges of plagiarism in my earlier reading of Lane's work because I
      too was not so concerned with the source of the statement as long as
      it represented the truth--to the degree that the writer saw and
      understood that truth. But Paul did not live up to this standard and
      that is why the old rationale of looking past the idiosyncrasies of
      Paul, lifting the works of others i.e. plagiarism, could no longer
      be overlooked.

      Through uncovering and analyzing his many techniques of distortion
      and brainwashing, it became clear that the intentions of this man
      were not noble as I had assumed. I had to search into the mysteries
      of mythomania (pathological lying) before any reconciling principle
      could be found to explain the actions of a person who appeared
      sincere and working from the highest principles on the one hand yet
      continuously engaged in lying of the most extensive, often
      unnecessaary, and obviously refutable type. So, PAUL GAVE UP HIS
      RIGHT TO OUR THANKS AND APPRECIATION FOR BRINGING THIS INFORMATION
      TO OUR ATTENTION BY USING THE TRUTH TO OPEN THE DOOR TO OUR
      CONSCIOUS ACCEPTANCE OF HIM AND HIS WRITINGS WHILE PLANTING LIES OF
      SUCH MAGINTUDE THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED(my caps). This is
      the strategy of the 'great lie' about which he was most familiar and
      used extensively.

      That is why reading Paul has been equated with swimming with sharks.
      A lie can pop out at any time to bite, i.e. infect the store of
      information that has been allowed into our consciousness as truth."

      Ford further states:
      "Many now in Eckankar can not bear to read Confessions. They are
      simply not prepared to confront information that they suspect can
      dislocate their comfortable equilibrium. This is ego's way of
      protecting them now because they really can't deal with truth at
      this time. They are not willing to go through the dislocation that
      truth will foster if they seek a new equilibrium. While this is the
      inevitable process of spiritual growth, ego protects each of us
      until we are ready to handle the next dose of truth. That is why a
      love for, indeed the imperative of truth, is the most important
      ingredient in the spiritual unfoldment of the individual. Some of us
      are truth-seekers while others are, temporarily at least, 'gate
      keepers.'"


      It seems to me, that even some former eckists continue to have a
      problem with acknowledging the "imperative of truth." They cling to
      what they held so dearly in the eck teachings, maintaining that
      these were truths they would not have found elsewhere, that Paul
      gave them so much, etc. But when in fact, the truths/valuable
      lessons were stolen and Paul had just signed his name to them!
      Priscus was happy to discover that the "Is it true, is it necessary,
      is it kind" quote originated outside of eckankar. He valued it, but
      now knowing that it did not from PT or Rebazar or eckankar, he can
      let go of another org lie. He says it is wonderful to know this real
      truth!

      I realize it is hard to look at what we once thought was true but is
      clearly a lie. Our ego will rationalize to cushion that shock and/or
      denial, but the greatest freedom does come from facing truth head-
      on, acknowledging it in its entirety. There is no shame in being
      duped or deceived, because now we see. Now we know, and we should
      say as Priscus did--it's "wonderful!" And we need to share what we
      learned with others!

      Mish


      From the http://www.thetruth-seeker.com BB by Journey 4/25/2006


      The eck Quote by Buddha: "True, Necessary, Kind"

      Hello, Priscus!

      Thank you for asking where I found the quote by Buddha. I read it on
      page 349, in Julian Johnson's book, published 1939, "The Path of the
      Masters." Julian Johnson wrote: "A rule laid down by the noble
      Buddha is a most excellent one for all men to follow. He (Buddha)
      said that if you propose to speak, always ask yourself—`is it true,
      is it necessary, is it kind?'" I used the quote, attributing it to
      Buddha, thinking that Harald might respond somewhat as you have. It
      is an often used quote by Eckists, and even the eck singing
      vahanas, "The Hindu Kush Mountain Boys Plus One," wrote a song based
      on it in the mid 80's and made the quote more popular and attributed
      to Eckankar. I did enjoy hearing this group perform on more than one
      occasion. I agree that it is a fine quote; however, it has been over-
      used in Eckankar when enforcing the Law of Silence, so it is an eck
      suppression tool. It's interesting, that at one time, JPT once spoke
      of this as being the "art of silence." You may recall that Usually
      Skeptical (Nacal) showed how Klemp did not follow this rule himself
      in regards to the Postal Worker story. I have been reading Klemp's
      latest book, "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," and have noted that
      Klemp is now calling some chelas "losers," (found on page 211) so
      again it appears that Klemp continues to not apply this rule to
      himself.

      In "Confessions of a God Seeker," Ford explains how Twitchell
      plagiarized from "The Path of the Masters," so it is rather evident
      that this quote is still another example of something that Twitchell
      plagiarized from other sources in creating Eckankar. In moving away
      from the eck experience, it does help to sort out what you found
      valuable and be able to learn that those "truths" originated else
      where, and you can then believe that you might very well have found
      them yourself in other sources which attribute them rightfully to
      their originator. It is my conclusion, and a helpful one for me, to
      realize that it is not necessary to credit and thank Eckankar for
      spiritual growth, even though I had an experience there. Eckankar is
      not a necessary stepping stone on the spiritual path.

      <snip>

      Best Wishes,
      Journey
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic