--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
> In a message dated 1/13/07 1:06:27 PM Central Standard
> prometheus_973@... writes:
> > HI ALL,
> > ECKANKAR believes in "channeling." That's how Twit
> > Shariyats right! PT, supposedly, got the info from one of the
> > SILENT ONES, or so the story goes. LOL!
> > <snip>
> "Not all the writing is made up of cantos or free verse. Often
> it is straight narrative, or legends and stories. Sometimes it is
> allegories or fables. [....]"
> [Based on: Introduction to the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad (3rd printing
> 1997, p. xiv (3rd paragraph), by Paul Twitchell]
> Often? Legends? Allegories? Fables? Well, IMO I would like
> to argure that this appears to be the main problem with those
> who encounter "religion" in general. The literal word and its
> context vs. its imagined one!
> I am giving a link to a glossary page where I have illustrated
> definitions for the following words: history, allegory, myth,
> legend, fable, and trivia, etc. In some places I give more than
> one definition for each word so that you can look at the older
> vs. the more modern definitions for each.
> Here is just a sample of what you can find (at least with
> regard to the etymology for "fable"):
> Fable n. Probably before 1300, a falsehood, lie, pretense; later,
> a ficticious or imaginative story (before 1325); [....]
> In order to give a more accurate transcription for these words
> and their definitions I had to illustrate them on a web page and
> not in a Yahoo post - as most of you know, Yahoo does not
> allow html code, and italics (etc.) text does not come through.
> Here is the link:
> Again - and as you can probably see - not all religious
> scriptures should be taken "literally". Including Eckankar!
> IMO, at least. In fact, Paul Twitchell spelled it out quite
> clearly that:
> "[....] But altogether it is the whole truth, concise in all its
> parts and tells everyone what life really consists of and how
> to live it."
> [Based on: Introduction to the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad (3rd
> printing 1997, p. xiv (3rd paragraph), by Paul Twitchell]
> The keys words here are "altogether" and "consists
> of". In my observation, at least. And for myself this has
> to include legend, allegory, fable, and even myth! This
> is what the "altogether" and "consists of" appears to
> mean for me.
> I don't have a problem with legend or myth (etc.) and I
> have said this before. The problem for me has been with
> determining the "context" of the teachings.
> Hopefully, the higer initiations (and initiates) will have
> become more experienced at solving this riddle, and at
> explaining it to others. Hopefully :)
I've already addressed much of these musings of yours in my
previous post, but one can't pretend PT's writings are the same
as legends and myths, which take on their savory nature from
having been passed down through time, steeping, marinating
and changing over the centuries in the culture from which they
arise. Twitchell wants you to think of his writings as such, and
also, contradictively, that he wrote these under the pretext that the
writings came from inner planes.
What nonsense. Here we have a book with obvious plagiarism,
so we know the writings didn't come from inner planes, but
rather from an assortment of other's books laid out with open
pages on his desk or kitchen table, from which he borrowed a
passage here, and a passage there, filling in the gaps between
with his own less capable prose, but using the great writings of
others as catalysts or seeds, which not surprisingly, form the
key, memorable passages that make up the best of his writings.
As to this statement you made:
>>"I don't have a problem with legend or myth (etc.) and I have
said this before. The problem for me has been with determining
the "context" of the teachings.
"Hopefully, the higer initiations (and initiates) will have become
more experienced at solving this riddle, and at explaining it to
others. Hopefully :)"<<
My dear fellow, having been myself a sixth initiate, I can safely
say that the eckankar high initiations are nothing but empty
positions of status. I wouldn't hold your breath in hopes for
anything revealing from them regarding any context of PT's
literature, his plagiary, or the so-called "fables, legends, and
myths" in the eckankar literature, since the presumed insights of
the H.I.'s, whatever they may be, are derived from the same
sources you have access to, no more no less. In short, they don't
have any better idea of these issues than anyone else.