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

Re: Doug Marman States One Cannot Use Logic When Reading PT's Words!

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    RELIGIOUS MEMES TECHNIQUES ARE THE ONLY DEFENSE WORKABLE IN MAINTAINING WHAT TWITCHELL CREATED. RELIGIOUS MEMES DEPEND ON GULLIABILITY AND FEAR! Hi, All!
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 13, 2007
      RELIGIOUS MEMES TECHNIQUES ARE THE ONLY DEFENSE
      WORKABLE IN MAINTAINING WHAT TWITCHELL CREATED.
      RELIGIOUS MEMES DEPEND ON GULLIABILITY AND FEAR!

      Hi, All!

      Re-visiting this earliar post put up today, it seems obvious that Doug
      Marman is using some of the techniques used in creating and maintaining
      religious memes. Consider, the explanations for both Faith as a virtue and
      Spiritual interpretation, and then read Doug's words in defense of the
      contradictions, lies and confusion that is a huge part of the eckankar
      Paul Twitchell made up as a new age religion/business, and Klemp and
      Co. are perpetuating.

      Faith as a virtue (meme)
      Belief without evidence is good. It is a sign of virtue, purity, trust and
      piety. In fact, if something is particularly hard to believe in, you require
      much stronger faith to accept it and are therefore a more virtuous person
      as a result. Belief despite contradictory objective evidence is especially
      good. Those who have trouble accepting seemingly arbitrary and
      implausible things are doubters, skeptics and unenlightened. They should
      take lessons from those of stronger faith who have no trouble believing.
      Example: 'And the Son of God died, which is immediately credible because
      it is absurd. And buried he rose again, which is certain because it is
      impossible.' - Tertullian, 2nd century Christian

      Scriptural interpretation (meme)
      The holy words are mysterious, and cannot be correctly read by just anyone.
      They must be interpreted by a person who is trained, enlightened or gifted in
      these matters. A passage that appears to mean one thing, may actually mean
      something quite different, and only the interpreters can glean the correct
      meaning. These people can also determine which passages are literal truth,
      metaphorical, no longer relevant and which one of several contradictory
      passages is the true one. They must be listened to. Questioning official
      interpretation is the work of a heretic. Scriptural interpretation and use can
      be applied as a gradient. On one extreme making the individual not question
      the doctrine in any form. On the other end the indoctrination can go further
      by presenting ambiguous scriptural interpretations to the individual and
      forcing them to create their own justification through mental effort.

      Now here are a few of the explanations that Doug uses, implementing
      the religious memes techniques--Doug wrote:

      "More importantly, it is only when you can let go of the mental rules
      of logic that you can see the significant truth contained by the
      paradox. This is more art than science, you might say, and it is one
      of the most beautiful aspects of Paul's creation.

      Naturally, people are going to try judging Paul based on traditional
      rules of logic, as if this was the way to evaluate what he is saying.
      People like to play up the contradictions as if they are indications
      of Paul's lying ways, when it is really just a reflection of their
      inability to follow Paul as he moves from state to state.

      In other words, just verifying the contradiction doesn't prove a
      problem. We need to study exactly what Paul was saying in each case.
      What did he really mean? Forget trying to compare one statement in
      one context with another written in another context, even if these are
      both in the same sentence. Paul moves in states even in mid-sentence.
      We need to see what he is actually saying, not try to compare them out
      of context as if there was one world view to see everything from.

      The reason we see this issue come up in spiritual teachings is
      because people try to apply rules of judgment that belong to other
      fields. Taking Paul's words and examining them under an intellectual
      spotlight isn't going to help anyone understand what Paul was getting
      at. He himself has pointed this out. It takes spiritual insight and being
      able to move in our states of consciousness freely. Unfortunately,
      this is often overlooked, so it is easy to see why so many can
      misunderstand what Paul was saying."

      It is interesting that Doug claims logic and critical thinking is of no use
      for the student of eckankar. I guess this goes hand in hand with the
      mundane writings and talks by Harold Klemp. A person can be too
      bright for eckankar, it seems. Religion is based on ignorance, and
      keeping Truth hidden is of upmost importance! LOL!

      Mish



      ***********************************************************************
      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"
      <mishmisha9@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hi, All!
      >
      > Doug Marman recently posted this message on A.R.E.
      > If only Paul Twitchell could have had Doug's fine writing
      > talents! Doug is really excellent at re-creating eckankar's
      > religious memes! LOL!
      >
      > I especially loved this comment Doug made at the end of his
      > post:
      > "Taking Paul's words and examining them under an
      > intellectual spotlight isn't going to help anyone understand
      > what Paul was getting at. He himself has pointed this out.
      > It takes spiritual insight and being able to move in our states
      > of consciousness freely." (sounds like the outer limits, doesn't
      > it?)
      >
      > So, here we see Doug placing faith (spiritual insight) above
      > reason (intellectual spotlight). Why is this important, one needs
      > to consider? It's because eckankar does not pass critical tests.
      > Eckankar is just another mocked up fake religion. PT was
      > obviously talking in circles and lying. The faithful chelas don't
      > want to believe this, so they find comfort in the twisting of their
      > own thought processes by someone like Doug. Those who want
      > to believe in the validity of the eck teachings, only need to find
      > comfort and support in what Doug says. That is Doug's job! LOL!
      > PT couldn't keep his stories straight, and, Doug states that PT's
      > statements were always changing--that's what a fast talker and liar
      > does. It is not a change of consciousness at all with PT. PT stayed
      > the course of being a consistant liar and plagiarizer! Doug is spinning
      > and spinning with his post. His goal is to make the reader follow his
      > spin, because manipulation of the way others critically regard PT is
      > crucial to what Doug wantsto achieve. It's Doug's vahana work for
      > what I suspect is Doug's own ego trip! It's just creepy, crawly to allow
      > someone to twist one's critical thinking and try to replace it with this
      > farce Doug calls "spiritual insight." There is something seriously wrong
      > for someone like Doug to attempt to devalue and erode another's
      > thinking skills (logic)! It is quite intentional on Doug's part. . . .
      >
      > Here's Doug's entire A.R.E. post:
      >
      > "Exactly right, Paul is talking about a human being and an
      > eternal consciousness. The problem here, however, is not
      > in what Paul is saying, but in how difficult it is to understand
      > what he really means. We are so steeped in ideas about what
      > a spiritual person should be like that we have a hard time
      > hearing that he is describing something different.
      >
      > The human and not-human aspect of the Living ECK Master is
      > not a <confusion>, nor are these <conflicting statements>.
      > But it does appear this way if we don't understand his comments
      > fully. The mistake is in how we read these things, not in what he
      > is saying.
      >
      > Let me get to the core of this. The spiritual traveler is one who is
      > both human and is filled with something beyond the human
      > consciousness. He speaks with God's Voice, you might say, but this
      > is more a poetic way of putting it than a fact, since he is also just a
      > man. These aren't contradictions. Both of these conditions can exist
      > at the same time. That is exactly why Paul moves back and forth
      > from one state to the other. He is trying to get us to see from both
      > and see that they both exist together.
      >
      > The mistake people make that keeps them from seeing the whole
      > of reality is that they try to understand everything from one state
      > of consciousness. They try to look at life from one grand model of
      > reality, but this will never capture it all. No one system can ever
      > include everything, even philosophers have proven this out. The
      > systematic approach always fails. But Soul can make contact with
      > truth in any state of consciousness. So the real reference frame
      > should not be a fixed systematic one, but one that is only focused
      > on that place where truth meets Soul.
      >
      > That is why Paul has given out his challenging quotes, because
      > they only way they really make sense is if we see them from
      > changing states. One can't read them all from one perspective. They
      > won't work that way. They will seem contradictory, but they aren't
      > when you move to the changing states that Paul is writing from.
      >
      > That's why Paul's idea of the Mahanta is not a fixed thing but is in
      > fact both local and universal. You can't see all of it from just the
      > human perspective, and you can't see all of it from just the God
      > perspective. It manifests itself in the human form, but it is much
      > more than any human being. He is not just saying this to give out
      > knowledge, but wants the reader to follow him as he moves from
      > one state to another.
      >
      > There isn't any big secret here. Paul talked about his way of writing.
      > He says it clearly in places when he says that God is all that
      > everyone believes IT to be and then says that God is nothing of what
      > people believe IT to be. Both of these are true. They do not
      > contradict each other unless you try to evaluate them from one fixed
      > point of view. But if you let go of one world view, and focus more on
      > what he is really saying, then you can see that both statements are
      > true from the state he is righting each of them from.
      >
      > More importantly, it is only when you can let go of the mental rules
      > of logic that you can see the significant truth contained by the
      > paradox. This is more art than science, you might say, and it is one
      > of the most beautiful aspects of Paul's creation.
      >
      > Naturally, people are going to try judging Paul based on traditional
      > rules of logic, as if this was the way to evaluate what he is saying.
      > People like to play up the contradictions as if they are indications
      > of Paul's lying ways, when it is really just a reflection of their
      > inability to follow Paul as he moves from state to state.
      >
      > Tian Yue would like people to think that Paul is being more honest
      > in what he says in Letters to a Chela, but in fact he is just speaking
      > from a state that he believes established ECKists will be able to
      > better follow and understand. If you follow Paul's state of
      > consciousness, his words are perfectly consistent and make sense.
      >
      > What I've found interesting with this is that when someone
      > positions these things as a <problem> even ECKists accept this and
      > admit that they can see the problem. We they forget to do is question
      > the underlying assumption that what we are seeing is indeed a real
      > problem. We shouldn't just accept it is a problem simply because
      > someone it seems that way to them. We need to explore it fully for
      > ourselves. Is it really a problem for us? If so, why?
      >
      > In other words, just verifying the contradiction doesn't prove a
      > problem. We need to study exactly what Paul was saying in each case.
      > What did he really mean? Forget trying to compare one statement in
      > one context with another written in another context, even if these are
      > both in the same sentence. Paul moves in states even in mid-sentence.
      > We need to see what he is actually saying, not try to compare them out
      > of context as if there was one world view to see everything from.
      >
      > The reason we see this issue come up in spiritual teachings is
      > because people try to apply rules of judgment that belong to other
      > fields. Taking Paul's words and examining them under an intellectual
      > spotlight isn't going to help anyone understand what Paul was getting
      > at. He himself has pointed this out. It takes spiritual insight and being
      > able to move in our states of consciousness freely. Unfortunately,
      > this is often overlooked, so it is easy to see why so many can
      > misunderstand what Paul was saying.
      >
      > That's all that is going on here. Well, this plus a lot of insisting
      > that there is only one way to look at it.
      >
      > It makes for an interesting world.
      >
      > Doug."
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.