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

Re: Zs Chela's Spin from an Old Post on A.R.E.

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hi Mish, Maybe Kent knows who this Zs chela from A.R.E. is? I agree that this chela doesn t know what he s talking about. It s obvious that he hasn t read
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 2006
      Hi Mish,
      Maybe Kent knows who this "Zs chela" from A.R.E. is?

      I agree that this "chela" doesn't know what he's
      talking about. It's obvious that he hasn't read
      The Path of the Masters to make those comments.
      Julian P. Johnson was merely detailing and
      explaining the Radhasoami religion and this
      perspective while making comparisons to other
      religions and POVs throughout history. This was
      a personal, mental, emotional, and spiritual creation
      by Johnson while explaining (promoting) his religion
      and its philosophy (PR).

      Twitchell not only mimiced Johnson's style, but he
      also took what Johnson had already researched and
      created while altering it with a more "Western"
      approach. On the surface this seems innocent
      enough, but Twitchell was lazy and would steal the
      research and wisdom of others and then merely do
      a rewrite of their words while inserting his own
      unique ego (personality) into the equation at times.

      Other times PT would copy word for word the wisdom
      and research of others without giving them their just
      due. This Theft -without giving recognition to the
      original source-(Soul) who researched, compiled,
      or put into expression these concepts of SPIRIT is
      refered to as Plagiarism. It is true that probably all
      truth known to mankind has been expressed in one
      way or another and by those Souls throughout history
      who will remain unknown (Anonymous) or undiscovered.

      Perhaps, in many cases, these Souls were us! Therefore,
      Twit or Klump, or Eckankar, have no lock on Truth,
      although, they may have copyrights to protect their
      lesser and distorted version of truth! LOL!

      Ironic, that a religion like ECKANKAR that was built
      upon a foundation of lies and theft now protects itself
      with copyrights!

      Prometheus




      Mish wrote:
      >

      Here's an old post from A.R.E. by Zs Chela (whoever
      that pseudo might be??), I thought interesting for
      discussion on PT's plagiarisms. Interesting how this
      took place in advance to Ford Johnson's book
      "Confessions of a God Seeker." Here's Zs Chela's
      spin:
      >
      From: Zs Chela - view profile
      Date: Wed, Jan 30 2002 1:10 pm


      > "Michael" <email addy deleted> wrote in message
      > > I agree with you both... Still, the simple question
      > of WHY Paul used other words and reformed them to his
      > view is not really able to be answered. Doug's suggestion
      > to me some time ago that as Paul had written the main
      > books in question well prior to actually starting Eckankar,
      > that these may have been trial runs. >
      >
      > Zs Chela wrote:
      >
      > You know, some time back Sri Harold made a comment that
      > has been called the Inner Library explanation. It is almost
      > universally dismissed here because no one has ever
      > contemplated on what it might really mean. IMO, it does NOT
      > mean that Paul went into contemplation and saw the same
      > words on the inner as Julian Johnson. It just doesn't work that
      > way. IMO, what this means is that Paul went into contemplation
      > or in his dreams and received a spiritual message, an inner
      > Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad experience. Julian Johnson also went into
      > contemplation and in his spiritual journey had nearly the same
      > experience, explored the same part of the inner Shariyat. Johnson
      > wrote about his experience. Paul saw that Johnson's experience
      > was essentially identical with his own, but with certain important
      > differences in detail. So Paul rewrote Johnson making changes to
      > emphasize the differences. Another possibility, that does not
      > contradict the above, is that Paul and many of his followers at the
      > time were very familiar with the Johnson book, so Paul rewrote
      > Johnson in order to emphasize those differences. It is often as if
      > Paul is saying to Johnson, "Yes, but this is how I see it." Paul
      > changed specific and important words and this makes an important
      > difference between the two.
      >
      > David Lane, in his zealousness to protect Charan Singh, misses this
      > entirely.
      >
      > A Chela
      >
      > ##########################
      Mish:
      It doesn't seem like Zs Chela has read Julian Johnson's book to be
      able to make this sweeping opinion regarding Twitchell's writings
      versus "The Path of the Masters." He's just guessing--doesn't provide
      evidence of what was essentially important differences beyond
      changing a name here and there. It would be more credible if
      he would have pointed out the important changes! This is just fluff!
      Zs Chela seems to be quite zealous himself in protecting the
      eckankar org. : )
      >
      Zs Chela was a 5th initiate (from what those who know his true identity
      posted on A.R.E.) back in 2002. I wonder if this spin was expedited in
      preparation of Ford Johnson's book being published the following year.
      I seem to remember an H.I. I knew telling me that Ford was writing a
      book--so was there information already circulating out there among the
      H.I.s about "Confessions" prior to its release?
      >
      I also read on A.R.E. that a couple of H.I. eckists who participate on that
      site gave a workshop on cyberspace discussion use at the springtime
      seminar in Washington D.C. in 2003--again, perhaps to counter the anti-
      eckankar discussions on the 'net, already taking place and also for what
      might be expected once eckists became aware of Ford Johnson's
      "Confessions?" Just some thoughts about eckankar spins going way back
      and how they are still spinning now. Anyone know anything about this?
      >
      Mish
      >
      > p.s. Hi, Kent! I'm enjoying your posts. I've read many others that you
      > posted on A.R.E. Good insights and clarity.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.