Reply to Prometheus
- Prometheus wrote:
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)!
Yes, I see what you are saying. And to some extent I empathize.
Thanks for being kind.
- I responded and showed that I was not a machine without innate
ability to interpret experiences. If I were a machine and if Eckankar
were only like a program to which I could not respond but only react,
then I would want to unplug. But what is my Experience of Eck is not
what is the experience of others. It is unique to me. I had no mind
to unplug from my experience - even before the question was asked.
The reference to unplugging from Confessions involved the part
about Graham. It didn't mean Ford's book did not inspire me to
research further into the recorded history of the outer teachings. I
already, in another post, explained that it was not the entire book
that I wanted to unplug from.
I can very well illustrate this. In fact I already did this years
If you go to that page of my timeline and read the entry for
October 21st, 2001, it will show what Graham said:
"It is not my intention to do this, it never was, yet I have been
asked to place these experiences in front of Sri Harold. When M__
V____, and L___ K___ spoke very highly of you it seemed a good idea
to approach you."
This is what I read from the book. I read that it was Lisa Kyle,
in a letter (10/05/2001) who mentioned the journal to Ford Johnson.
"Myself and a fellow H.I., Mary Voaden, are in contact with an
individual who is having the most profound inner experiences and
initiations seemingly on the same levels and also those beyond those
of Paul and Harold."
I read that Ford went to England to arrange a meeting with Mary,
Lisa and Graham. And that Mary and Lisa also accompanied Graham to
the states to meet with Harold and Ford.
Earlier than this I discovered that a response from Chungchok to
Graham (October 3rd, 2001) mentioned the word "Tom". But this was
AFTER Mary inquired about Chungchok and mentioned the name to Graham.
It was also Mary who gave a video to Graham showing Ford Johnson
giving a talk BEFORE Graham decided to share all:
"At first I was cautious about what to give you, I honestly do not
want to cause trouble for anyone, therefore, I was going to hold back
on some of the sensitive revelations. That was until Mary lent me a
video of you giving talks at Milton Keynes."
I knew all of this from having read the book years ago. But when I
make reference to this episode recorded in Confessions, people start
asking me if I read the book and start alleging that I missed some
Hey. I have a right to unplug from what I read just like you or
anybody else does. This was Graham's experience that was recorded in
Confessions. It wasn't Ford's experience. It isn't my experience. I
am not going to plug into "Tom". As for the parts that were Ford's
experience I don't see those in the same light as that of Graham's.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Nobody needs to defend "Confessions of a God Seeker", the book. It
is what it is and will be what it will be for each person who reads
it. I don't think people will all have the same impression whether it
is a book by Ford, or whether a book by Eckankar.
These are only recorded experiences that we are talking about. And
when other people read books they are the witness and the interpreter.
Not a machine running a program. This is my opinion.