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

Re: When & Why Twitchell First Created the "Mahanta"

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hi Etznab and All, PT s lies evolved! If Steiger did get the term mahantas from Twitchell in October 1968 and Twitchell wrote the JAN. 1, 1969 Wisdom Notes
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 27, 2008
      Hi Etznab and All,
      PT's lies evolved! If Steiger did get
      the term "mahantas" from Twitchell in
      October 1968 and Twitchell wrote the
      JAN. 1, 1969 Wisdom Notes (where he
      first mentions MAHANTA) in the previous
      month of DEC. 1968 then this does show
      the evolution of Twitchell's lies and con
      of Eckankar.

      It's not really all that strange that Twitchell
      didn't give any background on the "mahanta."
      He didn't need to right away. PT could just
      equate the mahanta title to that of the "Inner
      Master."

      Where in Eckankar then or now do you see
      any "etymology?" Look at the word Eckankar
      versus Eckonkar!

      Does Klemp really want to discuss etymology?
      Besides, in both New Age and Fundamentalist
      Religions it is not necessary for their members
      to dot all of the "i's" or cross all of the "t's!"
      Faith and Belief come into play more than Facts
      or Truth!

      Prometheus



      etznab@... wrote:
      >
      > E.S.A.,
      >
      > I found it somwhat curious that when the
      > "MAHANTA" term appeared in the wisdom
      > notes that there wasn't more history about
      > where this term came from. I mean, if really
      > so new, shouldn't it have come with more
      > history and explanation?
      >
      > The word itself is not even English. One
      > with the same letters has existed for many
      > years anterior to the trademarked Eckankar
      > all caps version, but not in English, IMO.
      >
      > Making it "different", IMO, means giving
      > the creator liberty to define it different from
      > other forms and the definitions attached to
      > them.
      >
      > No place do I see in the writings of Paul
      > Twitchell an attempt to illustrate the "etym-
      > ology" of this word as it existed previously.
      > Either I haven't seen it, missed it, forgot I
      > saw it, or the explanation never existed.
      >
      > [Well, there was a reference to the word
      > "mahantas" - in the Forward to The Tiger's
      > Fang, written by Brad Steiger and dated
      > October 1968, mind you. It was in italics
      > as late as the 8th Printing 1979 version,
      > and was supposed to have been Brad S.
      > quoting Paul Twitchell. Paul's Intro to The
      > Tiger's Fang carries the same sentence -
      > which would appear (IMO) to indicate it
      > was a quote (by Brad in the Forward) of
      > Paul Twitchell, but the word mahantas,
      > in Paul's Intro, is replaced by the word
      > teachers! Incidentally, the same Brad
      > Steiger Forward appears in the 1969
      > version of The Tiger's Fang, however,
      > an Intro=2
      > 0by Paul Twitchell does NOT!
      > Intro I read was in the 1979 version -
      > followed by the name Paul Twitchell
      > typed. The context for "mahantas" -
      > as used by Brad Steiger was - app-
      > arently - tied to the term "spiritual
      > travelers". Both words "mahantas"
      > & "spiritual travelers" appear to be
      > plural. NOT singular.]
      >
      > Another word I am looking for explanation,
      > history and etymology for is Mahavakyis -
      > a word associated with the "Silent Ones", I
      > believe.
      >
      > Neither "mahanta" or "mahavakyis" is too
      > terribly difficult to decipher, IMO, concerning
      > their history prior to Eckankar Inc.
      >
      > For the latter, I would have to ask: What
      > language is that? There is a word in Sanskrit
      > (and in Julian Johnson's Path of the Masters)
      > that looks something like mahavakya. In this
      > illustration I see the elements "maha" + "vak"
      > + ya.
      >
      > On the following link you can type the word
      > mahavakya - in space adjacent "Word in Primary
      > Language (Sanskrit, Tamil, Pahlavi) - and then
      > click search. There is a definition.
      >
      > Also, you can search for the elements "maha"
      > and "vakya" for their definitions as well. Incidentally,
      > the root in vakya ["vak"] is curiously similar to that
      > for the Sanskrit root "vac". The Latin root for "voice"
      > is "voc" (perhaps "vox") and letter "k" is generally
      > thought to be "older" than the letter "c". "Vac," &
      > "Vach" - in Hindu mythology I have seen - has a
      > connection to the feminine, or the "female" sid
      > e of
      > creation.
      >
      > What is interesting to me is that I don't neces-
      > sarily see the idea of "nine" or "silent" in the word
      > mahavakyis (or in mahavakya, for that matter). So
      > I still wonder about the etymology of this word.
      >
      > Etznab
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.