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

Personal Study of God and Its Ways

Expand Messages
  • makiztor
     Thank you E.S.A. for helping to manifest Living Echo vs. Living God, along with a reply to same. Both articles were sent to the TruthSeeker B.B., however, I
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
       Thank you E.S.A. for helping to manifest Living Echo vs. Living God,
      along with a reply to same. Both articles were sent to the
      TruthSeeker B.B., however, I imagine that they probably manifested
      here first (if not only here). I am thankful to see you grant me the
      liberty to share my views, and that you understand that what I say is
      not an argument for any particular religion - Eckankar included! I
      would rather classify my findings simply as "a personal study of God
      and Its ways."
       
         The word vs. (versus) is a past participle form of the word
      vertere ["turn"]. Just what happens when things move in circles, or
      back and forth. This is my understanding at least. The title Living
      Echo vs. Living God was to illustrate the dynamic relationship
      between Heaven and Earth or what seems to happen in between. If you
      understood nothing but this, it would be unnecessary to read any
      further. At least, this was the intention of both of my posts. Simply
      to describe the dynamic relationship between one end of creation and
      another.

      To better understand what I am saying here, consider what an echo
      is. An echo is a reflection, or deflection rather, of sound. And the
      nature of an echo depends on two things. The issuing initial sound
      vs. that which attempts to impede, obstruct, or contain the initial
      sound (consequently limiting the way that Spirit will manifest). Do
      you need a copyright from planet Earth before Spirit, or the Sound of
      God, can manifest in your life? Do you have to stop and think before
      every written and spoken - even imagined - word (to determine first
      if anybody else owns them) before they can live in your awareness?

         If it were not for the aspect of change, Spirit would not be able
      to manifest in different forms. An artist would not be able to
      perfect a work of art. For the sculptor, an image already exists. The
      sculptor only has to remove what is standing in the way. In this
      respect, destruction (Shiva in the Hindu Trinity) is not a totally
      negative aspect. So depending on how you see it, change can turn out
      to be a blessing or a curse.

         There is a word in India called Vedanta. One of its definitions
      being "End of the Vedas". End, like the end of a pyramid suggesting
      the highest versus the lowest point. The word "Mahanta" also carries
      an "anta" suffix. The Sanskrit version of the word "boundary", or
      end" ("Anda" probably having a related meaning). I can tell you
      what "I" see in this word, in this sound rather, and that is an end
      in relation to another. I see this as the original teachings and the
      highest truths forge a path through history like high and low notes
      on a scale of sound. The mind, the emotions and the physical body,
      can record these sounds. And sound sustains the various elements from
      one end of creation to another.

         A form of the word Mahanta existed before the creation of Eckankar
      Inc. Paul Twitchell initially used this word to designate a "high
      (highest) state of consciousness". The Sanskrit prefix here
      is  "Maha". It has the general meaning of "Great". In other languages
      the Sanskrit "h" changes to "g" (etc.). Most of the English words
      used to describe measurement (particularly with regard to quantity)
      begin with the letter "M". There are many, much, more, most, mega,
      mammoth, major, myriad, measure, multiple, million, massive, and
      magnificient, to name just a few. An earlier version of the
      word "master" was "magister". Wise men of old were called "Magi".
      Capable men and women were called "Magicians". Two definitions for
      the word "Mahanta" that I came across were "head of a monastic
      establishment" (Hindu) and, an adjective meaning "big" (Pali). Here I
      am not trying to redefine the meaning of Mahanta that may belong to
      Eckankar Inc. I am defining the "word" Mahanta that belongs to me!

         The version of Trinity that exists for God according to the three
      aspects ("bodies") of the "Mahanta" quoted from the Shariyat-Ki-
      Sugmad, Book One, is not what I find an easy read. However, I did see
      elements to that paradigm that were insightful. If it were up to me,
      however, I would like to view the original transcripts for the
      Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, Books One and Two (particularly the five verses
      referenced in my Posts: Living Echo vs. Living God) and if the words
      that we have today are the same exact words put down by Paul
      Twitchell. According to "Tuza Hu" (apparently), Books One and Two of
      the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad were NOT written by Paul Twitchell, but rather
      by Brad Steiger! (did I spell that name correctly?) Regardless, where
      did the words that describe God as a Trinity come from? Did they, do
      they, correspond with the elements Creator, Creation, and Change?
      What else is it that changes over time but the Living manifestation
      of the Spirit of God? The Shariyat quotes that I referenced (in
      earlier posts) mention not one, but three aspects (or "bodies") to
      the "Mahanta". Long, long ago people argued and fought over a similar
      Trinity issue. Within the Catholic church some people said that
      the "Master" (they called him the "Son" of God) was all three
      aspects. Some said he was not. Today people are still arguing! In
      fact, even within the "gates" of Eckankar I hear people saying that
      the Mahanta and the Living Eck Master (as defined by the outer
      teaching of Eckankar) are one and the same! I see people worshipping
      (yes worshipping!!!) the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master as God! But
      so much for literal interpretations of scripture, Eckankar or not.

         I certainly don't expect people to grasp my style of writing at
      first glance. However, so far I have done my best to express what I
      have seen and heard. Where others are concerned, I can do only this.
      The word Mahanta, as I understand it, refers to the pinnacle of
      something. As the head is the pinnacle of the human body, but only in
      relation to the feet! A head without feet is not a complete human
      body - not a Living Master (or "Historical" Mahanta), only a part.
      What comes out of the Heart of God exists like the Spirit of God
      issued like a river,  or a breath. Particularly speaking, it goes out
      and returns to a source. Like blood in the human body and air that we
      breathe. I really don't believe that the actual living truth to the
      triune aspect of God needs a copyright. Rather, I believe it was
      BEFORE the beginning of organized religion on Earth! Even BEFORE the
      scriptures on Earth (including cave paintings)! What does this say
      about the path to God? What does this say about our inhertent right
      to follow this Path from the Heart of God to the ends of the Earth?

         "To every thing (turn, turn, turn) there is a reason." (I know
      it's season, but I said reason.) Since the age of fifteen I have
      valued this quest (the reason why things happen). I am now forty-
      three. When it comes right down to it, it is not the books, it is not
      even another person that matters to me most. It is the living meaning
      (the living truth)inside!

      It's a good thing that people don't walk around in costumes every
      day of the year. Or do They? Trick or treat :)

      Etznab
    • mishmisha9
      Hi, Etznab! Well, this is quite wordy, but okay! I have this question for you. Do you agree with the definition of mahanta as found in the Eckankar Lexicon?
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Etznab!

        Well, this is quite wordy, but okay!

        I have this question for you. Do you agree with the definition of
        mahanta as found in the Eckankar Lexicon?

        Also, it is my opinion that it is incorrect to refer to the living
        echo or sound as heaven. According to eckankar dogma the ocean of
        love and mercy is the highest heaven and where sugmad resides.
        Therefore, living echo is not a precise definition of heaven when in
        fact it is the essence of God as sound which exists on all planes of
        consciousness.

        As I read this statement of yours, "The title Living Echo vs Living
        God was to illustrate the dynamic relationship between heaven and
        earth or what seems to happen in between," I understand that Living
        Echo means heaven while Living God means earth. This is what you are
        saying?

        The problem I have with your writing style is that it seems to be
        full of hidden riddles, and I suspect that is why many people do not
        respond to your posts generally. As a person who has some knowledge
        of how to put together one's thoughts in writing, an important rule
        is to make yourself clear from the get go. If a reader does not
        understand your message, then the problem lies with the writer
        rather than with the reader. As well, the title needs to be clearly
        explained and each topic line of each paragraph should again be
        explained clearly within the paragraph to the reader. Each paragraph
        builds on the others and directly link back to the title of the
        essay. Personally, I do not have the time to play this game . . . I
        have other things to do and trying to figure what you mean is too
        tiresome. I'm sorry if I am sounding harsh, but at least I am being
        direct and honest. I wish you would be more direct and concise as
        well. I think you would achieve more discussion this way. You seem
        to have a lot of knowledge, so why not organize it better for others
        and make it easier to interact with you? Vagueness does not appeal
        to most readers.

        I hope you will respond as sometimes I have noticed you do not
        respond to a poster's questions. I offer this as a suggestion to
        improve your communications.

        Best regards,

        Mish


        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "makiztor"
        <etznab@...> wrote:
        >
        >  Thank you E.S.A. for helping to manifest Living Echo vs. Living
        God,
        > along with a reply to same. Both articles were sent to the
        > TruthSeeker B.B., however, I imagine that they probably manifested
        > here first (if not only here). I am thankful to see you grant me
        the
        > liberty to share my views, and that you understand that what I say
        is
        > not an argument for any particular religion - Eckankar included! I
        > would rather classify my findings simply as "a personal study of
        God
        > and Its ways."
        >  
        >    The word vs. (versus) is a past participle form of the word
        > vertere ["turn"]. Just what happens when things move in circles,
        or
        > back and forth. This is my understanding at least. The title
        Living
        > Echo vs. Living God was to illustrate the dynamic relationship
        > between Heaven and Earth or what seems to happen in between. If
        you
        > understood nothing but this, it would be unnecessary to read any
        > further. At least, this was the intention of both of my posts.
        Simply
        > to describe the dynamic relationship between one end of creation
        and
        > another.
        >
        > To better understand what I am saying here, consider what an
        echo
        > is. An echo is a reflection, or deflection rather, of sound. And
        the
        > nature of an echo depends on two things. The issuing initial sound
        > vs. that which attempts to impede, obstruct, or contain the
        initial
        > sound (consequently limiting the way that Spirit will manifest).
        Do
        > you need a copyright from planet Earth before Spirit, or the Sound
        of
        > God, can manifest in your life? Do you have to stop and think
        before
        > every written and spoken - even imagined - word (to determine
        first
        > if anybody else owns them) before they can live in your awareness?
        >
        >    If it were not for the aspect of change, Spirit would not be
        able
        > to manifest in different forms. An artist would not be able to
        > perfect a work of art. For the sculptor, an image already exists.
        The
        > sculptor only has to remove what is standing in the way. In this
        > respect, destruction (Shiva in the Hindu Trinity) is not a totally
        > negative aspect. So depending on how you see it, change can turn
        out
        > to be a blessing or a curse.
        >
        >    There is a word in India called Vedanta. One of its definitions
        > being "End of the Vedas". End, like the end of a pyramid
        suggesting
        > the highest versus the lowest point. The word "Mahanta" also
        carries
        > an "anta" suffix. The Sanskrit version of the word "boundary", or
        > end" ("Anda" probably having a related meaning). I can tell you
        > what "I" see in this word, in this sound rather, and that is an
        end
        > in relation to another. I see this as the original teachings and
        the
        > highest truths forge a path through history like high and low
        notes
        > on a scale of sound. The mind, the emotions and the physical body,
        > can record these sounds. And sound sustains the various elements
        from
        > one end of creation to another.
        >
        >    A form of the word Mahanta existed before the creation of
        Eckankar
        > Inc. Paul Twitchell initially used this word to designate a "high
        > (highest) state of consciousness". The Sanskrit prefix here
        > is  "Maha". It has the general meaning of "Great". In other
        languages
        > the Sanskrit "h" changes to "g" (etc.). Most of the English words
        > used to describe measurement (particularly with regard to
        quantity)
        > begin with the letter "M". There are many, much, more, most, mega,
        > mammoth, major, myriad, measure, multiple, million, massive, and
        > magnificient, to name just a few. An earlier version of the
        > word "master" was "magister". Wise men of old were called "Magi".
        > Capable men and women were called "Magicians". Two definitions for
        > the word "Mahanta" that I came across were "head of a monastic
        > establishment" (Hindu) and, an adjective meaning "big" (Pali).
        Here I
        > am not trying to redefine the meaning of Mahanta that may belong
        to
        > Eckankar Inc. I am defining the "word" Mahanta that belongs to me!
        >
        >    The version of Trinity that exists for God according to the
        three
        > aspects ("bodies") of the "Mahanta" quoted from the Shariyat-Ki-
        > Sugmad, Book One, is not what I find an easy read. However, I did
        see
        > elements to that paradigm that were insightful. If it were up to
        me,
        > however, I would like to view the original transcripts for the
        > Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, Books One and Two (particularly the five
        verses
        > referenced in my Posts: Living Echo vs. Living God) and if the
        words
        > that we have today are the same exact words put down by Paul
        > Twitchell. According to "Tuza Hu" (apparently), Books One and Two
        of
        > the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad were NOT written by Paul Twitchell, but
        rather
        > by Brad Steiger! (did I spell that name correctly?) Regardless,
        where
        > did the words that describe God as a Trinity come from? Did they,
        do
        > they, correspond with the elements Creator, Creation, and Change?
        > What else is it that changes over time but the Living
        manifestation
        > of the Spirit of God? The Shariyat quotes that I referenced (in
        > earlier posts) mention not one, but three aspects (or "bodies") to
        > the "Mahanta". Long, long ago people argued and fought over a
        similar
        > Trinity issue. Within the Catholic church some people said that
        > the "Master" (they called him the "Son" of God) was all three
        > aspects. Some said he was not. Today people are still arguing! In
        > fact, even within the "gates" of Eckankar I hear people saying
        that
        > the Mahanta and the Living Eck Master (as defined by the outer
        > teaching of Eckankar) are one and the same! I see people
        worshipping
        > (yes worshipping!!!) the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master as God!
        But
        > so much for literal interpretations of scripture, Eckankar or not.
        >
        >    I certainly don't expect people to grasp my style of writing at
        > first glance. However, so far I have done my best to express what
        I
        > have seen and heard. Where others are concerned, I can do only
        this.
        > The word Mahanta, as I understand it, refers to the pinnacle of
        > something. As the head is the pinnacle of the human body, but only
        in
        > relation to the feet! A head without feet is not a complete human
        > body - not a Living Master (or "Historical" Mahanta), only a part.
        > What comes out of the Heart of God exists like the Spirit of God
        > issued like a river,  or a breath. Particularly speaking, it goes
        out
        > and returns to a source. Like blood in the human body and air that
        we
        > breathe. I really don't believe that the actual living truth to
        the
        > triune aspect of God needs a copyright. Rather, I believe it was
        > BEFORE the beginning of organized religion on Earth! Even BEFORE
        the
        > scriptures on Earth (including cave paintings)! What does this say
        > about the path to God? What does this say about our inhertent
        right
        > to follow this Path from the Heart of God to the ends of the Earth?
        >
        >    "To every thing (turn, turn, turn) there is a reason." (I know
        > it's season, but I said reason.) Since the age of fifteen I have
        > valued this quest (the reason why things happen). I am now forty-
        > three. When it comes right down to it, it is not the books, it is
        not
        > even another person that matters to me most. It is the living
        meaning
        > (the living truth)inside!
        >
        > It's a good thing that people don't walk around in costumes
        every
        > day of the year. Or do They? Trick or treat :)
        >
        > Etznab
        >
      • etznab@aol.com
        Mish, In my post I said Here I am not trying to redefine the meaning of Mahanta that may belong to Eckankar Inc. I am defining the word Mahanta that belongs
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Mish,

             In my post I said "Here I am not trying to redefine the meaning of Mahanta that may belong to Eckankar Inc. I am defining the "word" Mahanta that belongs to me!"
          For example, I can write the word, I can type it, I can picture it in my head, and I can represent it any number of ways so long as I use the same letters. This is the word that belongs to me. But it is more than this. It is what the word "means" to me, and I gave examples of what it means in my post.

             You wrote:

             "Also, it is my opinion that it is incorrect to refer to the living echo or sound as heaven. According to eckankar dogma the ocean of love and mercy is the highest heaven and where sugmad resides. Therefore, living echo is not a precise definition of heaven when in fact it is the essence of God as sound which exists on all planes of
          consciousness.

             Mish, your understanding of words is not exactly my understanding of words. Neither is my understanding of words the same as every person who belongs to my family, my state and country, or my religion. I mentioned the words Creator, Creation, and Change. These were used as very generic indicators. Creator being a symbolic word (according to my understanding) for God. Creation was a symbol for the Spirit of God, or Sound - which according to my impression is NOT the same on every plane of existence. Just like an echo is NOT the same in every area of space and time. Sound can be deflected, and especially by other sounds. I did not refer to the living echo or sound as Heaven. Heaven is what I might (might) equate with the Heart of God, the Ocean of Love and Mercy, the pinnacle of Divinity. But "Heaven" for some people could mean "All" the planes of God. I did not intend to use it in that way.

             I will try to be brief. You wrote:

             "I understand that Living Echo means heaven while Living God means earth. This is what you are saying?"

             NO. NO. NO. First of all, "Living God" may not be referring to an adjective and a noun. But one is a verb. The word "Living". Now if you want me to give you a literal description for "Living" God like some kind of magic pill that will grant you this experience, I feel that understanding is what each person has to come by on their own. They, are in fact, part of the equation. I am not trying to be funny, sarcastic, or intending to mock anybody's intelligence by saying this. Seriously.

             Mish writes:

             "The problem I have with your writing style is that it seems to be full of hidden riddles, and I suspect that is why many people do not respond to your posts generally."

             Etznab responds:

             I agree with your observation. And in a sense my writing style does contain what appear to be riddles. However, I do make an attempt to speak plainly at times. To start, I know full well that when speaking to other people I am already starting out as a riddle (according to their understanding vs. my own) to begin with. But I also try to connect what you refer to as "riddles".

             I admire you for being direct and honest. And I admit that you are not the only person who has described my writing (or communication) in similar fashion. I should be more diligent at communicating my points concisely. To be honest with you, I am not a writer at heart. My natural style of writing is poetry, which does not follow the same exact rules as "writing" in general. But how would I come off on this bulletin board and others if I said everything like a poem, or in rhyme?

             I'm gonna humor you Mish - since I am now beyond the scope of rational thought.
          Do you know anything about astrology? My natal Mercury is directly opposed by the planet Saturn. Mercury stands for communication and Saturn for limitation or learning by hard experience. I always feel oppressed with communicating to others, at least in a conventional way. (Is Mercury retrograde now? I'll have to check AstroWeather)

             I respect you for communicating and not compromising your integrity in order to empathize with me. You probaly have attained levels of mastership in areas that are undiscovered territory with respect to my own experience.

             Prometheus had some questions as well. But I believe that those questions came  before my last post. I will try and be concise at answering him, but it may have to wait until another day, since the hour is late.

             It could be that I came here to this community to learn from the people who could teach me best what I need to learn. I am already learning to communicate better. If ever so slowly.

          Etznab

            

            













            





        • Elizabeth
          ... rational thought. ... directly opposed by the planet Saturn. Mercury stands for communication and Saturn for limitation or learning by hard experience. I
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:

            > I'm gonna humor you Mish - since I am now beyond the scope of
            rational thought.

            > Do you know anything about astrology? My natal Mercury is
            directly opposed by the planet Saturn. Mercury stands for
            communication and Saturn for limitation or learning by hard
            experience. I always feel oppressed with communicating to others, at
            least in a conventional way. (Is Mercury retrograde now? I'll have
            to check AstroWeather)


            *** Hey Etznab can you humor me too? LOL I only know a little
            about astrology. Though I find it interesting when on a given day,
            my daily horoscope hits the nail on the head! So can you tell me
            anything about being a female born Taurus 4/22/60 10:35 a.m. in MI.?

            I don't know; it seems like you are making an excuse for why you are
            the way you are? No need to explain yourself really? Though this
            subject could be interesting to discuss. I read a book by Psychic
            Sylvia Browne, "Life on the other side". It this book she discusses
            how we each are born with Life Themes. We come here with two
            according to her. One that impels us forward day after day and one
            which is the most accurate description of the compulsion that tries
            to distract us from that drive.

            This to me, is a little more interesting these days. Working with my
            higher self, learning what my life themes are and operating under a
            set of ethics.

            Just some random thoughts this morning, as I get my little one off
            to school.

            Liz
          • etznab@aol.com
            Liz, I am not a practicing astrologer and think that if you want to know about astrology then it would be better to do a personal study yourself. When I
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Liz,

                 I am not a practicing astrologer and think that if you want to know about astrology then it would be better to do a personal study yourself.

                 When I mentioned the subject, it was at a time when I felt that humor would be appropriate. Yes, in a way it was an excuse. But I intened it to be a humorous one.

              Etznab 
            • Elizabeth
              ... humor ... it to be a ... *** Well we have something in common then... ;-) I was trying to be funny too. Liz
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                > When I mentioned the subject, it was at a time when I felt that
                humor
                > would be appropriate. Yes, in a way it was an excuse. But I intened
                it to be a
                > humorous one.
                >
                > Etznab
                >


                *** Well we have something in common then... ;-) I was trying to be
                funny too.

                Liz
              • prometheus_973
                Hi Liz and Everyone, Yes, words are important as is the way we use them. Using humor as an excuse could be viewed, by some, as being condencending. This makes
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Liz and Everyone,
                  Yes, words are important as is the way we use them. Using humor as
                  an excuse could be viewed, by some, as being condencending. This
                  makes it difficult to understand what is being said. IMO - People
                  should say what they mean and mean what they say without making
                  assumptions or giving a 20/20 hindsight explanation or excuse for
                  being misunderstood. I agree with Mish that being direct and concise
                  is usually the best way to communicate our thoughts.

                  Klemp does his best to confuse Eckists in his seminar talks when he
                  jumps around and back and forth from story to story. HK is applauded
                  for being able to tie up the loose ends and complete the stories in
                  the alloted time frame. Eckists admire him for this and see it as
                  funny! However, Klemp's stupid little stories require Eckists to
                  look for hidden meanings and to second guess him (the Mahanta) by
                  making a silk purse out of a sow's ear! Klemp is intentionally vague
                  and this encourages Eckists to seek a greater (higher) and more
                  profound message from his juvenile rantings. The real reason that
                  Eckists fall asleep is because Klemp is boring! It has nothing to do
                  with "getting it on the inner." LOL! You see, this is how
                  Eckankar "works" for many Eckists. Just fill-in the blanks for
                  yourself... within the confines of the Dogma (i.e. the Shariyats,
                  discourses, the Guidelines, Spiritual Laws, the Zoas, etc.). The
                  problem is that it is difficult to fill-in the blanks and remain a
                  true Eckist if you go outside the confines of the Eck Dogma.
                  Actually, filling in the blanks or second guessing the message of
                  the LEM/Mahanta is in and of itself outside of the Eck teachings.
                  The Search for Truth within Eckankar now becomes secondary to the
                  search for truth from Klemp's talks. Eckankar is a distraction for
                  the real Truth Seeker.

                  Many Eckists are confused with the Eck teachings anyway, and this is
                  why Klemp wants them to imagine, create, and manifest their own
                  reality within the Dogma of Eckankar. Eckists are even confused as
                  to who or what "God" is versus who or what the Mahanta is versus who
                  or what Sugmad is. What does Eckankar, the Religion of the Light and
                  Sound of God mean versus Eckankar, the Ancient Science of Soul
                  Travel mean? I find it interesting that Eckankar (Klemp) sees
                  the "God" of all other religions as being the Kal, and that Eckankar
                  constantly promotes that it is the Religion of God (the Kal).

                  Also, Eckankar has still used the old Third Eye (Tisra Til)
                  technique since the beginning of this Astral scam/cult of
                  Twitchell's. The Tisra Til is not even the highest of the Astral
                  chakras! Yet, most H.I.s place their attention on the Tisra Til
                  Chakra (located between the eyes) when they sit down to do a proper
                  spiritual exercise. Klemp then has the nerve to imply that
                  Twitchell's Mahanta Consciousness would not be as "high" today when
                  compared to his Mahanta Consciousness. Does this mean that the
                  Mahanta Consciousness is limited by time or that the vehicle for it
                  (Twitchell vs. Klemp) was limited in the first place! However, if we
                  look at what Klemp has accomplished we can only see things of the
                  material and lower Planes of Kal that have been influenced by
                  change. The spiritual growth of Eckankar and of Eckists (except for
                  initiation numbers and a more complex org) has not expanded at all.
                  Continued use of the Tisra Til to meet the Master on the Astral
                  Plane (a Radhasoami technique) is still used by Higher Initiates.
                  What has profound thoughts, methods, techniques and message has
                  Klemp conveyed versus what Twitchell has already given from his
                  lower and dated Mahanta Consciousness? None! How could Klemp make
                  untruths into Truth when Eckankar is based (mostly) upon the
                  distortions of other distorted teachings - mainly Radhasoami.

                  Etznab, if you have read the archives of our posts on Eckankar and
                  the Links you will then have a better idea of our thoughts and
                  experiences. The who, what, WHY, when and how will become clearer. I
                  am glad that you have come here and I'm interested in your
                  experiences and views, except, this site will remain an anti-
                  Eckankar site while exploring other topics. We've been there, done
                  that, and bought the tee shirt (literally too)!

                  Prometheus


                  Liz wrote:

                  etznab wrote:
                  When I mentioned the subject, it was at a time when I felt that
                  humor would be appropriate. Yes, in a way it was an excuse. But I
                  intened it to be a humorous one.

                  Etznab

                  *** Well we have something in common then... ;-) I was trying to
                  be funny too.

                  Liz
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.