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

2433Re: PT: Rebazar the Real LEM & SAT NAM the I...

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    Apr 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Etznab,

      I read your post (below) and don't quite see your point, amidst all
      that you wrote, that might pertain to my post as an answer.

      I also looked at your timeline. It seems I've run across your
      website before, probably from one of the news groups you post

      I read through some of the entries, and it occurs to me that one
      essential element in a good history is an understaning of the
      relative value of any given historical occurance, as weighted
      against any other occurance. A historian would by necessity be
      in a very difficult position, in that the historian would need to have
      an extraordinary ability to see the world from a variatey of world
      views. The moment one world view (say, for example, a western,
      Christian world view as opposed to an Eastern world view, or
      vice versa) becomes the predominant filter or bias (which would
      certainly be hard to avoid), then the history becomes distorted,
      and the history is not accurate. The notion that any given world
      view is superior or favorable (like a Christian historical bias, or
      an Eckist historical bias) then what is created is a deliberately
      biased history. A biased history is not a true history. The
      arrogance of such an approach is the notion of having the one
      and only vantage point of value from which to view the world.

      An objective historical approach may have enormous
      limitiations, but those limitations are crucial to objectivity. And
      while no historian may be capable of complete lack of bias, at
      least such a historian is making the sincere attempt to attain an
      objecitve perspective. Any other approach will be even more
      seriously flawed.

      Your attempt to create a history that includes both factual as well
      as mythical sources of history is truly an interesting concept, but
      even with this approach, objectivity is necessary, because the
      historian would have to be careful to include all important
      mythical sources of historical information, and not leave out one
      source, while favoring another.

      So, in such an indeavor one would have to collaborate with
      scholars of various disciplines. This already is done to some
      extent, it seems. It is the field of humanities, in which history, art,
      literature, religion, philosophy, and science are brought together
      under one roof, and compared in terms of where these fit in time.

      An eckankar history by an eckist would by nature include a bias
      toward eckankar. A history of fictional masters would be a
      fictional history, except to the true believers.

      I noticed in your timeline a great deal of trivia about eckankar is
      included. I wondered if you included trivia regarding other
      teachings or philosophies, so when I found myself reading the
      year 1973, I checked to see if Alan Watts' death in 1973 was
      noted, which it wasn't. This was one simple fact that was easy to
      check, and I'm sure others could think of other historic figures of
      even greater significance.

      But Alan Watts' work is far more known than PT's, and his books
      are highly read and lauded by scholars. So, it is clear there is a
      bias in your timeline. PT isn't really all that well known. Most
      people I meet have never heard of him or eckankar.

      A historian is saddled with the task of weighing all the events,
      and deciding just what has had greater influence upon the world.

      This is why an objective approach is necessary to achieve
      credibility. One just can't escape that fact.

      This is what I see occuring in the eckankar community:: A
      tendency to favor that which supports their accepted
      constructions, whether or not there is any real basis to those
      notions. People make the facts fit their beliefs. For example,
      Doug Marman's assertions are rarely what could be called
      factual. When confronted with facts, he simply patches around
      the facts by either making up facts of his own, or simply pretends
      there is no logic to the disturbing facts. The result is a
      dangerous willingness to ignore reason, common sense, and
      facts, in favor of what at times could reasonably be termed
      making everything fit his constructions.

      I've come to view such tendencies as cultic, and these
      tendencies are what almost all radical, fundamentalist groups
      have in common. A belief system is constructed, and what
      doesn't support that belief system is denied, attacked, ridiculed,
      or simply ignored. This is why such groups often despise and
      denigrate former members. Nearly all cultic groups denounce
      those who leave.

      Notice the manner in which eckankar former members are
      treated. Notice the extremely insulting rhetoric by PT about

      Whenever objective thinking is denounced, as it clearly is in
      eckankar, beware. It is a sign something is very, very wrong.


      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      etznab@... wrote:
      > Tianyue,
      > It doesn't matter to me what is your name (pseudo or
      otherwise), that
      > you are an ex-member of Eckankar posting on an ex-member
      site or
      > might not follow a religion. I try to look at the words in spite of
      who wrote
      > them or what other people might think about the writer. In other
      words, in
      > a non-prejudiced way. So I can honestly say that I liked to see
      much of
      > what I read about objective history posted by you. And maybe
      not all, but
      > much of what you've written in the past I found interesting.
      > even very good.
      > What might not be apparent to other readers about my own
      view of
      > "history" is that I've seen my share.
      > http://mirrorh.com/timeline.html
      > I've spent many days and hours compiling history for
      reference purposes
      > in the hopes of better "sorting it all out". And I can assure you
      > recorded
      > history (IMO) is in serious need of clarification. Especially
      > history.
      > Especially religious history.
      > What also might not be apparent is that even today I am
      preoccupied with
      > the recording of history.
      > http://mirrorh.com/timeline0307.html
      > And it is not because I believe in all of it, but because I wish
      > capture a
      > record of it. Because it takes so much time, nowadays the
      current news that
      > I record is usually limited to titles only. And it is not all of the
      > but it gives
      > at least a partial "flavor" of what had been served up on any
      one particular
      > day.
      > In the past when I wrote about having become thoroughly
      frustrated with
      > regard to recorded history, I meant it! I've had history coming
      out my ears
      > for years now!
      > Because, before the timeline, I researched word history. It
      often meant
      > looking at the recorded meanings to religious terms and
      accounts of the
      > history that each religion has left behind.
      > So, the history of Eckankar was not my first exposure to
      objective vs.
      > mythological history. I had already seen and become frustrated
      by this
      > kind of thing many many hours and some years before looking
      > into recorded Eckankar history.
      > Much of the history that I have looked at (sometimes over and
      over) is
      > still with me in the form of memory. I've a lot of information
      > around
      > in the head when I read what people post.
      > You wrote:
      > <snip>
      > The term history should reflect true history. Inner experiences
      > not qualify as an objective history, no matter how much the
      > believes in the inner experience. For example, we know the
      > if far older than 5,000 years, despite some Christians belief to
      > contrary. I'm not against such inner revelations, only that those
      > believe in them shouldn't make the error of expecting others to
      > accept them as if they were fact.
      > <snip>
      > According to most of what I believe you meant by that
      paragraph, I
      > really liked reading it.
      > Also liked the last paragraph in that recent post:
      > Facts do not make a person a believer in the Kal world, or to
      > off the inner world. An assertion that facts should be ignored or
      > shunned is the worst kind of sophistry.
      > *********
      > I know that some of the facts (including the name Michael
      > recorded on that trivia timeline I mentioned... I know that
      because the
      > timeline was illustrated by me, that some people identified me
      > what I believed according to the history I compiled.
      > The history (facts) about Michael Owens I saw as an
      historical event
      > worthy of an Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline. However, I got the
      > that some folks thought I believed in Michael Owens according
      to what
      > Michael Owens believed about himself. I don't believe it was
      fair to me
      > or if I were compared to the "Kal" simply for having compiled
      > that contained elements of same.
      > But ask me if I care. I still associate with, and at times post
      on "anti-
      > Eck" bulletin boards (when allowed a chance) and "Eck"
      bulletin boards
      > (when allowed a chance). Also, as you know, on A.R.E. And I
      have in
      > the past complimented people in spite of who they were or
      what religion
      > they believed in. I looked at the words and tried to respond to
      them. In
      > a lot of places I said what I felt in spite of what anybody else,
      > my peers, may have thought. It doesn't mean that I haven't
      been partial
      > at times, because I have. But the objective is to be more
      impartial as I
      > see it. So I try.
      > Etznab
      > I hope this helps to explain my own personal passion with
      regard to the
      > outer recorded history of Eckankar. Why I created a timeline
      even, about
      > Eckankar trivia. (Which, to yourself and others, is proabably not
      > new or that you haven't seen before. All I basically did was to
      arrange the
      > data chronologically.
      > Oh how I was loved by everybody (NOT!) for posting that
      timeline. And
      > so, perhaps it is true that "history" often takes secondary
      importance to
      > personal belief. Especially when it contradicts personal belief.
      > according
      > to what I have seen, some parts of history (Eckankar or not)
      have still to be
      > clarified even hundreds and thousands of years later.
      > No I don't always like it. And yes (IMO), it can be frustrating.
      > Etznab
      > **************************************
      > See what's free at http://www.aol.com
    • Show all 51 messages in this topic