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

Re: A Book of Circular Thinking?

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hello Etznab and All, I m wondering why or if Eckists have ever noticed that their religion is dualistic versus non-dualistic. And, have Eckists ever pondered
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Etznab and All,
      I'm wondering why or if Eckists
      have ever noticed that their religion
      is dualistic versus non-dualistic.
      And, have Eckists ever pondered
      or contemplated on the differences
      between the two?

      With Klemp everything is black or
      white, pos. or neg., outer or inner,
      right or wrong, passion or virtue,
      low versus high.

      Myself... I don't see that these
      opposites have anything to do
      with the Divine. It's more about
      us and how religions have interpreted
      the Divine in order to analyze
      and explain or understand IT.


      Prometheus



      etznab wrote:


      I don't have the book by Kabir that you mentioned.
      And I don't know that he ever mentioned ek onkar.

      Some of what I saw from the Anurag Sagar looked
      similar to Samkhya (Sankhya) philosophy where I
      believe purusha is mentioned, too. However, what I
      saw from the history of Samkhya is that it changed
      over the years. Vedanta, or Advaita Vedanta looks
      similar in some ways, but different.

      http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/a67.html

      Samkhya seems to go back to about 800 B.C. and
      Kapila.

      In connection with Guru Nanak, the words Alak Purukh
      are mentioned here.

      http://www.sikhmarg.com/english/nanak.html

      It seems that someone is comparing Nanak to Alak
      Purukh (another spelling for Alak Purush?)

      The teachings of Kapila, Kabir, Nanak and even the
      teachings of Sant Mat & Eckankar have a number
      of similarities. IMO.

      The 16 shabdas mentioned in the Anurag Sagar are
      curious. As are the "24 principles" of the Samkhya
      philosophy. (I've seen various numbers used to show
      the order and sequence of creation.)

      The common word here is "purush" (also purukh).

      It might be interesting to look at the cosmology for
      Samkhya and compare it to the Anurag Sagar, by
      Kabir.

      The 24 principles of Samkhya are illustrated here.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

      The 16 shabdas are mentioned here.

      http://santmat-thetruth.de/index.php?option=com_book&book=4817&page=23

      The apparent tendency in both systems seems
      to tend from the "spiritual" to the "physical".

      From the section: The Manifestation of the 16 Shabdas:

      "With the fifth Shabda a brilliant light came into existence:
      When Sat Purush uttered the fifth Shabda, Kal-Niranjan was
      incarnated. He is created from the most glorious part of the
      body of Sat Purush â€" that is why he troubles the Soul. [....]"

      http://santmat-thetruth.de/index.php?option=com_book&book=4817&page=23

      I find that remarkable, because Lucifer was described
      as "light-bearing" (the literal translation). And Lucifer's
      story is similar to the one illustrated in Anurag Sagar,
      where Kal Niranjan becomes "damned".

      IMO though, the only thing that really be damned are
      the numbers of ignorant people led to interpret myths
      literally, and according to numerous religious dogmas
      that appear to damn them for disagreeing with formal
      organized religious interpretations which may be far,
      far away from the truth. In other words, those that be-
      come disconnected from the true origins of their path
      appear to lead others along a similar path. The "blind"
      leading the "blind".

      As for those who want to see the truth. Damn them!

      See what I mean? :)

      For example, part of the intention behind this site (IMO)
      is to put the teachings of Eckankar into a spotlight. To
      look at where they came from & how the history evolved.

      Over at A.R.E. it's not so easy to dispell the myths and
      clarify fiction from fact because (like other places I have
      visited) the power of myth is very, very strong. And I don't
      have so much problem reading stories, legends & myths
      except when they are taken literally and people don't see
      the difference between fiction and fact.

      Who even knows the true interpretation of Lucifer? Can
      the story be proven as factually true? Some angel fell
      from Heaven and tempted Soul to do the same?

      I mean, what is the role of Kal Niranjan described from
      the teachings of Eckankar? Is it not to "trap" Soul and
      keep it bound to the lower worlds? Except the same
      teachings poetically describe Soul being sent into the
      lower worlds by "God"? Is this not correct?

      Who gave the Adi Karma to Soul in the beginning acc-
      ording to the teachings of Eckankar? See what I mean?

      However if anybody tries to make sense out of all these
      stories (or goolash) it only stirs the pot that much more.
      Then you have one religion fighting another, with each of
      them claiming to have the best interpretation. And those
      sincerely trying to research and discover the truth - be
      they members of a particular religion or not - often have
      to deal with "The Inquisition" and undergo various forms
      of "torture" for speaking their minds.

      Circular thinking? Is that like what happens in a whirl-
      pool and everything goes down the drain? :)

      Etznab
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.