Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] 03/2008 H.I. Letter-Ask the Master-(Spiritua...
- In a message dated 3/15/08 12:36:10 PM Central Standard Time, prometheus_973@... writes:
But, let's face it... Religion is, mostly, a placebo for what
ails people. Some religions use an "active placebo" which
stimulates the "feel-good" areas of the mind via missionary
work, imagination, and ego. They notice "changes" in their
lives and dreams, etc., therefore, they can see it or something
working and come to believe in it even more so as this new
religious Wheel cycles on and on. Therefore, people expect to
see and hear what fits and feels good within the parameters
of their belief system of religious Dogma. If most of these
lonely ECKists didn't have so much time invested (and initiations)
and all of those ECK friends and those EK social connections
they would let their ECK Memberships lapse! Eckankar doesn't
work... but for them it's better than nothing.
It would seem that whatever is the case for any individual
unfoldement spiritually that it would have to come through a
individual. Someone would have to realize it and, IMO, that
would be the idividual - being central to the focus of Spirit.
When religious organizations are founded, IMO, it appears
to be a necessary imperative - for the same reason - that an
individual become instrumental. However, in this latter case,
the individuals at the head of world religions are at the head
of churches and organizations. The same with individuals at
the head of corporations. One could argue they are not the
head of all other people spiritually as if nobody could have a
thought and/or realization on their own independent from the
head. Especially if the "head" is not on your "body", but on
their body only.
Sometimes there are voting rights among members, or the
institution of councils. Only one problem though, fundamentaly
the "first principle" of spiritual life is not subject to others, but
others are subject to It. Whether it be "God" or "Soul", it would
seem that the fundamental relationship between both can only
be realized by individual awareness. Not by proxy of another.
All of the religions tell us to "go within" in some form or another,
Imagine having your religious beliefs subject to the dictates
from states of consciousness on a lower plane, or par. Imagine
"God", or "Universal Truth" subject to the laws of inferior planes
and staes of consciousness. It doesn't appear to work that way,
IMO. Rather lower planes are subject to laws from the planes
above them in vibration. In other words, the higher the state of
consciousness, the higher the vibration, greater is the potential
effect over those below.
I thought it was a good point you made about religions. The
point I'm trying to illustrate is that all throughout religious history
there have been people telling others to "go within". The body
is the temple, etc. Even Paul Twitchell included mention of the
individual being central to spiritual realization. However, at the
same time people have designated that particular religions &
particular individuals are a means to the end. What if they said
"the individual" is the means to the end? Instead of some other
individual or organization? which is but its own channel for holy
spirit, not necessarily a channel by which it flows to all other
I think this spotlights the main argument between those who
are for or against religion. For or against surrendering their con-
sciousness to something seemingly outside of themselves.
It's a paradox for sure, I agree. How anything "outside" of the
individual can serve as a channel by which Spirit comes through
to them. Maybe that is why the "inner" is so popular a term and
emphasized whenever problems arise. I think that is pointing in
the right direction, but again, the problem revolves around the fact
that individual "inner" relationship with the "first principle", "God",
or "universal truth" can not be realized or experienced - in every
respect - by the proxy of another individual.
What people fear and dislike so much (and rightly so), in my
opinion (including the founding fathers of the U.S. constitution),
is the prospect of a foreign influence dictating to them what is
the manner by which they should worship the creator.
The head of another person - though it may be receptive to the
same ocean of universal truths - it cannot control all other heads
as if it were the sovereign ruler over them all. What would be the
purpose anyway? Power? Domination? And if "God" were like at
the back of everything and controlling all, would it do so with love
for all - "Soul exists because God loves it." - or like the "God" in
the Old Testament, a "jealous God" subject to what clothes were
given to IT by power-hungry priests?
I don't think "God", or "first principle", wants to dominate Soul.
But rather, give Soul freedom to realize the "first principle" and
so it (Soul) can do the same for others. I don't know if this fits
the definition of "co-worker with God", but I don't think it is far
When a parent teaches a child what is essential to life, IMO,
it gives not only something to the child, but by giving to another
there is more potential that it will be given to others. In that way
more people will learn what is essential to life. I think the same
is what "God" gives to Soul. By loving it, Soul has the potential
for serving as a channel for same. And vice-versa, if what seems
to come from "God" is less than the highest and best, potential
for that to propagate itself becomes stronger too. This is why I'd
suspect people want to correct the essential teachings of "God"
and religion. To give the best outer rendition of "universal truths"
so that others can "re-link" with what might have been lost. That,
or simply to correct mistakes.
My 2.9 cents :)
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance.