Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What More?
- In a message dated 1/3/07 1:15:03 AM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:
Thanks, Etznab. For what its worth, your post raised truly worthy
points, and in my way of seeing things, you're looking at an
important basic issue that underlies what so much of these
discussions are realy all about.
One thing I have speculated about and even posted about well
over a year ago on T.S. has to do with what they might not be
telling us, the people who DO know about Eckankar "Trivia" and/
I am not sure what are the terms of service or SOP on the
TruthSeeker about reposting content from their B.B. to other
venues so I hesitate to specify what I said in this regard. It
might be better to give the links to the posts instead.
The topic I speculated about is close to what Liz recently
mentioned about a "gag order". Did she say that Eckankar
paid for a gag order?
Personally I wouldn't want to put somehing like this on a
timeline (even if for my own personal viewing) because the
credibility of it (to me) cannot be credibly verified beyond
Although IMO it is something to consider perhaps, because
if people who know and/or who hold the missing pieces on
a number of issues are not allowed to talk about it well, the rest
of us could argue until we're blue in the face, and it could very
well cause more harm then good.
I don't know if there is a gag order. What I do know is that
sometimes I feel like people are putting a "gag order" on me
when I ask certain questions about conflicting information or
if I just want to know more about "Eckankar" history.
If I knew for sure that there was some legal element in all
of this preventing certain information from becoming public it
might answer a lot of questions IMO about certain events. At
the same time I have asked questions in this regard on T.S.,
but I don't recall Ford Johnson saying anything or writing in
his book anything about a gag order. It is very possible that
if he did I missed it, but I would welcome someone to refresh
my memory in the case that he (or even David Lane) did.
I think it's fair to say (without quoting the T.S. post) that I
had mentioned the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and what
happened to the Ark at the end of that movie. Remember it
got stowed away in a warehouse out of sight so that only
certain people in the government could know about it, but
the average citizen would not even know it existed.
Although it's speculation on my part, I do believe this might
turn out to be a healthy point for discussion because it would
put into context the "legal" nature of certain information that a
person in the future might want to seek or request. In other
words, if certain historical facts are "off-limits" to us, then it
might be well to take that into account.
I liked the posts about "good" and "evil" that came out yesterday
and last night I read a chapter by Helena Blavatsky by the name of:
DEMON EST DEUS INVERSUS. It was chap. 11 from The Secret
Doctrine (Cosmogenesis) Vol. 1. I know this book is on the net and
can be viewed for free. Anyway (she's not an easy read) but there
was a lot of history, comments, and speculations about God and
the Devil in that chapter.
I thought Prometheus started a good thread just recently about
spiritual experiences with or without (before and after) Eckankar
and wanted to respond to that too. Basically my observation has
been that it doesn't matter what the name of a person's religion or
spiritual path is. That the attribution of "name" is not a prerequisite
for spiritual experience. One possible example (although there are
probably many, but I'm naturally going to choose this one) is the
fact that even "legally speaking" the name "Eckankar" was not used
to refer to .... before the 1960's? (I didn't try an quote because I'm
not sure about the exact wording used in court. However, I imagine
most of you are already familiar with what I am referring to. So all
of those people who now use the name "Eckankar" have to consider
that that word and spelling may not always have been the "name" of
their religion - if only at the very least - before they first saw or heard
I know of people from various religions using different names to
describe the path they are on. But I don't think it is the name or the
symbol alone that brings spiritual experience. I could go and call
myself the President, but would that make me the President?
Perhaps in the land of "make-believe", but not in the country where