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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] 03/2008 H.I. Letter-Ask the Master-(Spiritua...

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/15/08 12:36:10 PM Central Standard Time, ... Prometheus, It would seem that whatever is the case for any individual unfoldement
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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.


      Prometheus,

         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,
      IMO.

         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
      people?

         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
      off.

         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 :)


      Etznab





      **************
      It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.