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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What More?

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/3/07 1:15:03 AM Central Standard Time, ... One thing I have speculated about and even posted about well over a year ago on T.S. has to do
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 3, 2007
      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/
      or history.

         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
      personal speculation.

         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
      about it.

         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
      I live.


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