2143Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: 12/2006 MYSTIC WORLD - Ask the Master #1
- Jan 15 10:05 AMIn a message dated 1/14/07 4:21:54 PM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:
So, as it appears from your statements, you have adopted Doug
Marmon's strategy of attempting to minimize the impact of PT's
plagiarism by pretending it is nothing of consequence.
The creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if
we ask them a question, they preserve a solemn silence.
And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke
as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing
to know about their sayings, they always say one and the
same thing. (12) - Socrates
(12) Phaedrus 275d. See Protagoras 329a, Hippias Minor 365c-d
(and Republic 378d), Laws 12.968d-e, Letters 7.343a.
O.K., so this is my point. Until we can identify what
a person's necessarily unique use of any word(s) may
actually have meant, the meaning(s) that we attach to
them are of our own making.
It also helps to know the context. Is it a story handed
down? A legend? (modified or not)
Take Rebazar Tarzs for example. Is it legend that
he is "supposedly" or "said to be" over 500 years old?
(Glossary for Eckankar, The Key to Secret Worlds
says "supposedly". The Eckankar dictionaries say
"said to be".)
The latest book about Eck Masters contains the
word "legend" as well, when it relates a story about
Rebazar Tarzs (not about his age, but about some-
I can empathize to some extent with most of your
observations and/or opinions. However, I still find a
lot of value in the words that Paul and others have
shared. What I see in any words, the meanings may
not absolutely match the meanings intended by any
particular author. However, that doesn't mean they
don't hold value for me. This is part of the freedom
of religion IMO. The freedom to believe in legends
and myths, etc. (and hopefully know the difference).
If I knew the context to all the stories, whether literal
or myth, fiction or non-fiction (etc.), I believe that for my
better understanding it could help.
Going back to Rebazar Tarzs. He has been called a
Tibetan Lama, etc. And due to the 500-year (plus) age
attached to his character, he does not qualify for the
description of so many other personages alleged to
stand for him.
There is only one other personage that I still "suspect"
might be connected. And that would be the legend of an
ancient Tibetan Master found within the teaching path of
Swami Yogananda, Swami Premananda (b. 1861), and
Swami Vivekananda (b. 1863), etc.
"A direct disciple of Swami Yogananda. Swami Premananda
established the Self Revelation Church of Absolute Monism in
O.K., so Paul Twitchell was familiar with both Swami
Premananda and Swami Vivekananda (at least). Paul
even at one time had belonged to a Church of Absolute
Monism in Washington, D.C. [1950-1955?]. And still,
this is speculation to identify Rebazar Tarzs with any
previous legends if I don't know exactly what was the
meaning of "supposedly" or "said to be" according to
Paul Twitchell when he described the age of Rebazar
At any rate, I find history, legend, and myth to be
interesting conversation topics. There is probably no
greater material treasure still existing on the Earth
today than what has preserved (albeit veiled) behind
the worlds words, languages, and symbols. This can
appear like a huge treasure chest of priceless and
valuable artifacts or it can turn out to be like Pandora's
box containing all the evils of humanity (except for hope).
IMO, this is the way that I might put it. However, according
to the quote by Socrates, what good are words if when we
question them they all say the same thing? (Or, for that matter,
Missing Persons in the song Words: What are words for When
no one listens anymore)
Well I would guess that we each have to find what works
for us. What works for me (at this point in time) is to explore
the differences between historical fact, myth, legend, allegory,
and fable, etc.
It is not that we can order others to believe in the religion
(myths and all) subscribed to by ourselves, because in the
United States there is a separation between Church and State.
It is not something (to my understanding) that we could even
propose to become a law by Democratic vote or amendment.
So (IMO) perhaps there was/is good reason for this separation
and what stands to keep the U.S. unique among some of the
other nations who might inhibit "freedom of religion" (not that
it never could seem inhibited here too).
It seems to me, that what most people opposed to particular
elements of religion really fear, is the possibility that some day
the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion
might become extinct in every nation. That there might come,
one day, only one form of government and one form of religion.
That both would share in common but a single author and/or
leader. That this would not be to every single person's liking or
advantage. IMO this is the only really great fear, but at the same
time a necessary crisis for every single individual to solve.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>