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

The Problem with Words

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    Hi, All! (Etznab and Everyone) Etznab, you might have explained this somewhere else, but I m interested in knowing how you became interested in etymology and
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 1, 2006
      Hi, All! (Etznab and Everyone)

      Etznab, you might have explained this somewhere else, but I'm
      interested in knowing how you became interested in etymology and how
      long you have devoted your time to the study. I'm just curious.

      Having just now read your recent posts this morning and the ones
      last night, I have a few thoughts. First, most of us have already
      looked behind the veil of eckankar and what we found is the reason
      we left. But it seems you are still delving there.

      Regarding the shariyat and reading it word by word in order to
      understand its meaning, the difficulty comes from Twitchell's
      plagiarizing and altering other people's thoughts and adapting these
      to his own private philosophy, while taking them out of context to
      do so. I believe that is why many eckists prefer the one particular
      exercise of randomly opening the shariyat to a page in order to find
      a directed meaning for them. It is more easy to do this then to plow
      through all the disjointed and contradictory writings contained
      within. Personally, I think reading such a tome seriously is bound
      to have negative effects on one's mind--maybe create some disorders
      that weren't there before or increase those that were there
      initially! : )

      Regarding the Ocean of Love and Mercy as the highest heaven vs the
      Living Echo (the Sound), in eckankar dogma the Sound is projected
      from the Ocean of Love and Mercy (the highest Heaven) where Sugmad
      resides. The Sound Wave then returns to the Ocean of Love and Mercy
      (this returning Sound Wave is what eckists are suppose to grab onto
      while doing a spiritual exercise in order to Soul Travel to the
      higher planes and return home to God), and then this can be said to
      be the Divine Echo. Therefore, IMO, this Echo or Sound Current is
      not the same as Heaven (or the Ocean of Love and Mercy). This is the
      accurate eckankar dogma, while your explanation of this is of your
      own creation and not that of eckankar. I point this out because
      while you claim to be still be an eckist, it seems that you are re-
      creating it to your liking and thus, perhaps, there is no need for
      you to use eckankar dogma and the shariyat as your platform--just
      say what is of your own creation and not confuse it with a bit of
      this or that inaccurately from eckankar? I don't think you need to
      give credit to someone else, say like the mahanta or the eck
      teachings--it is what you believe and thus, it is okay to say it!

      Going back to your statement in message 1795 "Personal Study of God
      and Its Way," you wrote, "The word vs. (versus) is a past particle
      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."

      This paragraph seemed to sum up your message, but when I noted it
      thus, you said, I didn't get it! But just regarding this paragraph
      and the way you have constructed it, "the title Living Echo vs.
      Living God was to illustrate the dynamic relationship between Heaven
      and Earth . . .," it does imply that you are discussing Heaven and
      Earth in those terms. When you say, if you understand nothing but
      this, it is unnecessary to read any further, well, I thought that
      was your meaning--literally. Your meaning, not mine! The use of
      metaphors only confuse your meanings and thoughts it seems.

      Thanks for the poetry. I can understand that you find it easier to
      compose poetry than prose. It takes a particular talent to be
      poetic. I love poetry but can't compose poems myself. I just
      appreciate it and those who do. Of course, there are poets and there
      are poets . . . : )

      Anyway, not to beat anything into the ground, I would suggest that
      you read the archieved posts here so that you can better understand
      the dynamics of this site and what has gone before. It will help you
      to understand us better and maybe not assume what we know or don't.

      Liz, thanks for reposting the Michael J. Fox blog from my yahoo 360!
      He sums it up well when he says "I learned from experience and took
      notes,"--that pretty much explains how each of us evolve into
      our "faith." One painting is worth a thousand words and actions
      speak louder than words, but words do echo and their content
      (meanings) do echo--as well as Etznab has tried to explain.

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