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

Re: Ford Johnson's HCS vs Eckankar - What Ford doesn't do

Expand Messages
  • Non
    It s been a while since I read the whole book, but I do recall feeling that the first half of the book was the best, and his discussion of religion in general.
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 16, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      It's been a while since I read the whole book, but I do recall feeling that the first half of the book was the best, and his discussion of religion in general. He also showed how the original India version, Rhada Soami was not much better or even the Sufi version from which most of the plagiarism came from. He does however, seem to believe that eckists would not leave eckankar unless they had something to take its place, and so he did try to have a big Seminar in Las Vegas and monthly on line spiritual meetings in which they would chant HUM instead of HU. Actually, now that I look at what I just wrote, maybe we should just go to an ek function and chant HMM? several times in rhythm and inflection, about 3 seconds apart. Just doing that makes me feel good and I can feel it remove any eckieguilt leftover. : ) LOL

      The problem as I see it, is that there is still too much in the direction of spiritual grandiosity. We create all that happens to us, no exceptions, and there just isn't enough of the kind of spirituality of Compassion. It's still very New Age, IMO.

      I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change and evolution of ideas as well as admitting to,"hmm, maybe that part wasn't so good or a mistake". Otherwise, it's just more dogma like.

      I'm still waiting for a Spirituality that includes a real sense of the Scientific Method. Think of how many Chemists who literally gave their lives, because their experiment blew up in their face, yet the periodic table is a pretty amazing thing. To some it may be boring, but if you take your time and get into newer theories about quantum theory and that scientists can actually take pictures of atoms and electrons, etc., well, just think about the fact that you cannot read this email without the technology utilized by chemists. And even there, they are willing to admit that their theories are just that, and creativity and change in thinking and ideas may take that technology to new levels that solve problems world wide, including Global Warming, that I doubt will be solved by positive thinking it away.

      noneckster ; )

      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
      >
      > I thought that I would add another comment on Ford's book.
      >
      > I am a former 29 year member of Eckankar. Yes, Ford was the top speaker at Eckankar seminars for many many years. But eventually he saw through Eckankar's lies and fabrications and felt it was his responsibility to write a book correcting all the unintentional lies he had been telling people while a member. Of course, when that happened, members of Eckankar turned on him and said he was an agent for the Kal (devil), was based on the mental plane only (not spiritual), and was interested in getting rich by writing an expose about Eckankar. I know what they said because I was still a member. Funny how these same people were praising him the day before he left Eckankar. Yet he was the same heart-based individual after he left Eckankar as before he left.
      >
      > Also, there is no anger coming from Ford in his book. Stating that it is there is a tactic that members of Eckankar use to discredit Ford. I read the book; there is no anger coming from Ford. I strongly suspect that the anger is being generated by the Eckists themselves who read the book, and they lack the ability to differentiate things properly.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
      > >
      > > All,
      > >
      > > I was over at Amazon.com reading some of the reviews for Ford Johnson's book Confessions Of A Godseeker. A person wrote a review that I pretty much agreed with, but at the end stated that Ford wanted to make his own spiritual movement like Eckankar's. Whether they literally meant that Ford's Higher Consciousness Society resembled Eckankar is something I am not sure of. while it is true that a lot of HCS does resemble Eckankar, it also resembles the religions that Eckankar was based on. Regardless, there a lot of very important differences between Eckankar and Ford's group.
      > >
      > > I tried to post a follow-up comment on Amazon, but I couldn't. So I decided to put it here. Everything between the two dashed line is my comment which I would have posted over there.
      > >
      > > - - - - - - - - - -
      > > Ford did start his own "Higher Cosciousness Society" as he calls it, and it didn't impress me either. But your saying "his own spiritual movement like Eckankar" is a bit wrong. Let me explain what Ford DIDN'T do in his Higher Consciousness Society. These are all things that Eckankar DOES DO.
      > >
      > > Ford
      > > (1) did not copy other's writings and then claim them as his own
      > > (2) did not say "I am God realized. Follow me."
      > > (3) did not say "Sing HU and visualize me."
      > > (4) did not say "Give me your problems. I will solve them for you when you are sleeping at night."
      > > (5) did not say "If you leave my group, you will suffer in astral Hells until you accept me again."
      > > (6) does not promise that if you follow his routine that you will never have to suffer through another incarnation on Earth
      > > (7) does not insist that his way is better than everybody else's,
      > > (8) does not say that every religion in the world sprung out of his Higher Consciousness Society.
      > > (9) does not charge a membership fee of over $120 a year
      > > (10) does not spend a ton of money advertising his group. I don't think he advertizes his group at all.
      > > (11) does not have an "initiation routine" set up in order to keep his members preoccupied with something that has no intrinsic meaning or value.
      > >
      > > At the end of your comment, you also state that Eckankar's techniques are better than Ford's. I don't use either, but even if you are correct, what price do people have to pay to use Eckankar's techniques? You have to sign your life over to the present leader of Eckankar. You have to accept him as you savior. You have to promise to dedicate your life to him (that happened to me during my second initiation). Ford doesn't require anything like that.
      > > - - - - - - - - - -
      > >
      > > Everybody can feel free to add any additional differences.
      > >
      >
    • prometheus_973
      Hello Non and Jonathan, Interesting thread. I ve been traveling and away from the computer and just now saw these posts. I could only read about the first two-
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 17, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Non and Jonathan,
        Interesting thread. I've been traveling
        and away from the computer and just
        now saw these posts.

        I could only read about the first two-
        thirds of Ford's "Confessions" and other
        former ECKists have told me the same.
        The rest of the book didn't interest me.
        I never really found Ford's workshops
        at EK Seminars all that interesting, for
        me, because he seemed to be focused
        upon manifesting success and the talks
        seemed rather business oriented.
        However, Ford is a dynamic speaker
        and just listening to him present his
        ideas was quite interesting and enjoyable.

        Yes, I was at Ford's first HCS seminar
        and was posting on his two sites at
        one time but never did the paid membership.
        HCS wasn't a religion, but it wasn't
        something I wanted to join either.

        I'm, now, an anti-joiner, mostly, and
        when I do "join" something I certainly
        don't buy everything they sell.

        Prometheus


        "Non" wrote:
        It's been a while since I read the whole book, but I do recall feeling that the
        first half of the book was the best, and his discussion of religion in general.
        He also showed how the original India version, Rhada Soami was not much better
        or even the Sufi version from which most of the plagiarism came from. He does
        however, seem to believe that eckists would not leave eckankar unless they had
        something to take its place, and so he did try to have a big Seminar in Las
        Vegas and monthly on line spiritual meetings in which they would chant HUM
        instead of HU. Actually, now that I look at what I just wrote, maybe we should
        just go to an ek function and chant HMM? several times in rhythm and inflection,
        about 3 seconds apart. Just doing that makes me feel good and I can feel it
        remove any eckieguilt leftover. : ) LOL

        The problem as I see it, is that there is still too much in the direction of
        spiritual grandiosity. We create all that happens to us, no exceptions, and
        there just isn't enough of the kind of spirituality of Compassion. It's still
        very New Age, IMO.

        I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change and
        evolution of ideas as well as admitting to,"hmm, maybe that part wasn't so good
        or a mistake". Otherwise, it's just more dogma like.

        I'm still waiting for a Spirituality that includes a real sense of the
        Scientific Method. Think of how many Chemists who literally gave their lives,
        because their experiment blew up in their face, yet the periodic table is a
        pretty amazing thing. To some it may be boring, but if you take your time and
        get into newer theories about quantum theory and that scientists can actually
        take pictures of atoms and electrons, etc., well, just think about the fact that
        you cannot read this email without the technology utilized by chemists. And even
        there, they are willing to admit that their theories are just that, and
        creativity and change in thinking and ideas may take that technology to new
        levels that solve problems world wide, including Global Warming, that I doubt
        will be solved by positive thinking it away.

        noneckster ; )

        jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
        >
        > I thought that I would add another comment on Ford's book.
        >
        > I am a former 29 year member of Eckankar. Yes, Ford was the top speaker at
        Eckankar seminars for many many years. But eventually he saw through Eckankar's
        lies and fabrications and felt it was his responsibility to write a book
        correcting all the unintentional lies he had been telling people while a member.
        Of course, when that happened, members of Eckankar turned on him and said he was
        an agent for the Kal (devil), was based on the mental plane only (not
        spiritual), and was interested in getting rich by writing an expose about
        Eckankar. I know what they said because I was still a member. Funny how these
        same people were praising him the day before he left Eckankar. Yet he was the
        same heart-based individual after he left Eckankar as before he left.
        >
        > Also, there is no anger coming from Ford in his book. Stating that it is there
        is a tactic that members of Eckankar use to discredit Ford. I read the book;
        there is no anger coming from Ford. I strongly suspect that the anger is being
        generated by the Eckists themselves who read the book, and they lack the ability
        to differentiate things properly.
        >
        >
        >
        jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
        > >
        > > All,
        > >
        > > I was over at Amazon.com reading some of the reviews for Ford Johnson's book
        Confessions Of A Godseeker. A person wrote a review that I pretty much agreed
        with, but at the end stated that Ford wanted to make his own spiritual movement
        like Eckankar's. Whether they literally meant that Ford's Higher Consciousness
        Society resembled Eckankar is something I am not sure of. while it is true that
        a lot of HCS does resemble Eckankar, it also resembles the religions that
        Eckankar was based on. Regardless, there a lot of very important differences
        between Eckankar and Ford's group.
        > >
        > > I tried to post a follow-up comment on Amazon, but I couldn't. So I decided
        to put it here. Everything between the two dashed line is my comment which I
        would have posted over there.
        > >
        > > - - - - - - - - - -
        > > Ford did start his own "Higher Cosciousness Society" as he calls it, and it
        didn't impress me either. But your saying "his own spiritual movement like
        Eckankar" is a bit wrong. Let me explain what Ford DIDN'T do in his Higher
        Consciousness Society. These are all things that Eckankar DOES DO.
        > >
        > > Ford
        > > (1) did not copy other's writings and then claim them as his own
        > > (2) did not say "I am God realized. Follow me."
        > > (3) did not say "Sing HU and visualize me."
        > > (4) did not say "Give me your problems. I will solve them for you when you
        are sleeping at night."
        > > (5) did not say "If you leave my group, you will suffer in astral Hells
        until you accept me again."
        > > (6) does not promise that if you follow his routine that you will never have
        to suffer through another incarnation on Earth
        > > (7) does not insist that his way is better than everybody else's,
        > > (8) does not say that every religion in the world sprung out of his Higher
        Consciousness Society.
        > > (9) does not charge a membership fee of over $120 a year
        > > (10) does not spend a ton of money advertising his group. I don't think he
        advertizes his group at all.
        > > (11) does not have an "initiation routine" set up in order to keep his
        members preoccupied with something that has no intrinsic meaning or value.
        > >
        > > At the end of your comment, you also state that Eckankar's techniques are
        better than Ford's. I don't use either, but even if you are correct, what price
        do people have to pay to use Eckankar's techniques? You have to sign your life
        over to the present leader of Eckankar. You have to accept him as you savior.
        You have to promise to dedicate your life to him (that happened to me during my
        second initiation). Ford doesn't require anything like that.
        > > - - - - - - - - - -
        > >
        > > Everybody can feel free to add any additional differences.
        > >
      • etznab@aol.com
        I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change and evolution of ideas as well as admitting to, hmm, maybe that part wasn t so good or a
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 18, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change
          and evolution of ideas as well as admitting to,"hmm, maybe that part
          wasn't so good or a mistake". Otherwise, it's just more dogma like.

          Noneckster,

          Not totally sure what you meant there. However, "hu"
          with an "m" is closer to sounding like "aum", or "om".

          Someplace in the writings by Paul Twitchell the word
          "AUM", or "OM" appears where, now, in the modern
          version, is the word "HU".

          I have the quotes someplace, and I think they were
          also posted at E.S.A.

          Another place (also in quotes at E.S.A.) Paul makes
          mention of the sound "hum", I believe, and some of
          the words he used to chant.

          Someone could follow up on this, if that is even what
          you were referring to. I wasn't sure the context, what
          you meant by: "hmm, maybe that part wasn't so good
          or a mistake". I assumed you meant "hu" with an "m".

          In any case (even if you were talking about something
          else) it brings up an interesting subject, IMO, looking
          for the history (etymology) of "hu" and "aum".

          Etznab

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Non <eckchains@...>
          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, Sep 17, 2010 1:08 am
          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Ford Johnson's HCS vs
          Eckankar - What Ford doesn't do

           
          It's been a while since I read the whole book, but I do recall feeling
          that the first half of the book was the best, and his discussion of
          religion in general. He also showed how the original India version,
          Rhada Soami was not much better or even the Sufi version from which
          most of the plagiarism came from. He does however, seem to believe that
          eckists would not leave eckankar unless they had something to take its
          place, and so he did try to have a big Seminar in Las Vegas and monthly
          on line spiritual meetings in which they would chant HUM instead of HU.
          Actually, now that I look at what I just wrote, maybe we should just go
          to an ek function and chant HMM? several times in rhythm and
          inflection, about 3 seconds apart. Just doing that makes me feel good
          and I can feel it remove any eckieguilt leftover. : ) LOL

          The problem as I see it, is that there is still too much in the
          direction of spiritual grandiosity. We create all that happens to us,
          no exceptions, and there just isn't enough of the kind of spirituality
          of Compassion. It's still very New Age, IMO.

          I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change
          and evolution of ideas as well as admitting to,"hmm, maybe that part
          wasn't so good or a mistake". Otherwise, it's just more dogma like.

          I'm still waiting for a Spirituality that includes a real sense of the
          Scientific Method. Think of how many Chemists who literally gave their
          lives, because their experiment blew up in their face, yet the periodic
          table is a pretty amazing thing. To some it may be boring, but if you
          take your time and get into newer theories about quantum theory and
          that scientists can actually take pictures of atoms and electrons,
          etc., well, just think about the fact that you cannot read this email
          without the technology utilized by chemists. And even there, they are
          willing to admit that their theories are just that, and creativity and
          change in thinking and ideas may take that technology to new levels
          that solve problems world wide, including Global Warming, that I doubt
          will be solved by positive thinking it away.

          noneckster ; )

          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
          <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
          >
          > I thought that I would add another comment on Ford's book.
          >
          > I am a former 29 year member of Eckankar. Yes, Ford was the top
          speaker at Eckankar seminars for many many years. But eventually he saw
          through Eckankar's lies and fabrications and felt it was his
          responsibility to write a book correcting all the unintentional lies he
          had been telling people while a member. Of course, when that happened,
          members of Eckankar turned on him and said he was an agent for the Kal
          (devil), was based on the mental plane only (not spiritual), and was
          interested in getting rich by writing an expose about Eckankar. I know
          what they said because I was still a member. Funny how these same
          people were praising him the day before he left Eckankar. Yet he was
          the same heart-based individual after he left Eckankar as before he
          left.
          >
          > Also, there is no anger coming from Ford in his book. Stating that
          it is there is a tactic that members of Eckankar use to discredit Ford.
          I read the book; there is no anger coming from Ford. I strongly suspect
          that the anger is being generated by the Eckists themselves who read
          the book, and they lack the ability to differentiate things properly.
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
          "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
          > >
          > > All,
          > >
          > > I was over at Amazon.com reading some of the reviews for Ford
          Johnson's book Confessions Of A Godseeker. A person wrote a review that
          I pretty much agreed with, but at the end stated that Ford wanted to
          make his own spiritual movement like Eckankar's. Whether they literally
          meant that Ford's Higher Consciousness Society resembled Eckankar is
          something I am not sure of. while it is true that a lot of HCS does
          resemble Eckankar, it also resembles the religions that Eckankar was
          based on. Regardless, there a lot of very important differences between
          Eckankar and Ford's group.
          > >
          > > I tried to post a follow-up comment on Amazon, but I
          couldn't. So I decided to put it here. Everything between the two
          dashed line is my comment which I would have posted over there.
          > >
          > > - - - - - - - - - -
          > > Ford did start his own "Higher Cosciousness Society" as he
          calls it, and it didn't impress me either. But your saying "his own
          spiritual movement like Eckankar" is a bit wrong. Let me explain what
          Ford DIDN'T do in his Higher Consciousness Society. These are all
          things that Eckankar DOES DO.
          > >
          > > Ford
          > > (1) did not copy other's writings and then claim them as his
          own
          > > (2) did not say "I am God realized. Follow me."
          > > (3) did not say "Sing HU and visualize me."
          > > (4) did not say "Give me your problems. I will solve them for
          you when you are sleeping at night."
          > > (5) did not say "If you leave my group, you will suffer in
          astral Hells until you accept me again."
          > > (6) does not promise that if you follow his routine that you
          will never have to suffer through another incarnation on Earth
          > > (7) does not insist that his way is better than everybody
          else's,
          > > (8) does not say that every religion in the world sprung out
          of his Higher Consciousness Society.
          > > (9) does not charge a membership fee of over $120 a year
          > > (10) does not spend a ton of money advertising his group. I
          don't think he advertizes his group at all.
          > > (11) does not have an "initiation routine" set up in order to
          keep his members preoccupied with something that has no intrinsic
          meaning or value.
          > >
          > > At the end of your comment, you also state that Eckankar's
          techniques are better than Ford's. I don't use either, but even if you
          are correct, what price do people have to pay to use Eckankar's
          techniques? You have to sign your life over to the present leader of
          Eckankar. You have to accept him as you savior. You have to promise to
          dedicate your life to him (that happened to me during my second
          initiation). Ford doesn't require anything like that.
          > > - - - - - - - - - -
          > >
          > > Everybody can feel free to add any additional differences.
          > >
          >
        • prometheus_973
          Hello All, I have read where Paul would talk about and teach chanting OM and AUM ( Difficulties? ) years before he taught about HU, although, Hu is mentioned
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 18, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello All,
            I have read where Paul would talk about
            and teach chanting OM and AUM ("Difficulties?")
            years before he taught about HU, although,
            "Hu" is mentioned in "The Path of the Masters"
            which was PT's main resource book.

            I've also read somewhere in a PT book(?),
            and heard some ECKists, pronounce HU as
            "WHO." However, I forget where I read about
            that pronunciation. In retrospect it was odd
            that these EKists were using this old pronunciation
            from what was probably an obscure out-of-
            print book of PT's (I'm guessing) from long
            ago. They seemed so loyal and star struck
            to/with Klemp, but then again, HK has called
            them by name and pointed them out while
            he was on stage and has printed some of
            their simple and sometimes embellished
            stories.

            Of course these same or similar experiences
            and stories citing minor miracles and interventions
            have been told by Christians as well. I think
            that some Eckists just want/need attention
            and to stand out from the crowd because
            they have strong egos and they want to express
            their individuality. This is also why many
            older/long time ECKists rebel against and
            exhibit passive/aggressive behaviour toward
            the RESAs (police/guardians) and the ESC
            Guidelines.

            Prometheus

            --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
            >
            > I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change
            > and evolution of ideas as well as admitting to,"hmm, maybe that part
            > wasn't so good or a mistake". Otherwise, it's just more dogma like.
            >
            > Noneckster,
            >
            > Not totally sure what you meant there. However, "hu"
            > with an "m" is closer to sounding like "aum", or "om".
            >
            > Someplace in the writings by Paul Twitchell the word
            > "AUM", or "OM" appears where, now, in the modern
            > version, is the word "HU".
            >
            > I have the quotes someplace, and I think they were
            > also posted at E.S.A.
            >
            > Another place (also in quotes at E.S.A.) Paul makes
            > mention of the sound "hum", I believe, and some of
            > the words he used to chant.
            >
            > Someone could follow up on this, if that is even what
            > you were referring to. I wasn't sure the context, what
            > you meant by: "hmm, maybe that part wasn't so good
            > or a mistake". I assumed you meant "hu" with an "m".
            >
            > In any case (even if you were talking about something
            > else) it brings up an interesting subject, IMO, looking
            > for the history (etymology) of "hu" and "aum".
            >
            > Etznab
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Non <eckchains@...>
            > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Fri, Sep 17, 2010 1:08 am
            > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Ford Johnson's HCS vs
            > Eckankar - What Ford doesn't do
            >
            >  
            > It's been a while since I read the whole book, but I do recall feeling
            > that the first half of the book was the best, and his discussion of
            > religion in general. He also showed how the original India version,
            > Rhada Soami was not much better or even the Sufi version from which
            > most of the plagiarism came from. He does however, seem to believe that
            > eckists would not leave eckankar unless they had something to take its
            > place, and so he did try to have a big Seminar in Las Vegas and monthly
            > on line spiritual meetings in which they would chant HUM instead of HU.
            > Actually, now that I look at what I just wrote, maybe we should just go
            > to an ek function and chant HMM? several times in rhythm and
            > inflection, about 3 seconds apart. Just doing that makes me feel good
            > and I can feel it remove any eckieguilt leftover. : ) LOL
            >
            > The problem as I see it, is that there is still too much in the
            > direction of spiritual grandiosity. We create all that happens to us,
            > no exceptions, and there just isn't enough of the kind of spirituality
            > of Compassion. It's still very New Age, IMO.
            >
            > I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is open to change
            > and evolution of ideas as well as admitting to,"hmm, maybe that part
            > wasn't so good or a mistake". Otherwise, it's just more dogma like.
            >
            > I'm still waiting for a Spirituality that includes a real sense of the
            > Scientific Method. Think of how many Chemists who literally gave their
            > lives, because their experiment blew up in their face, yet the periodic
            > table is a pretty amazing thing. To some it may be boring, but if you
            > take your time and get into newer theories about quantum theory and
            > that scientists can actually take pictures of atoms and electrons,
            > etc., well, just think about the fact that you cannot read this email
            > without the technology utilized by chemists. And even there, they are
            > willing to admit that their theories are just that, and creativity and
            > change in thinking and ideas may take that technology to new levels
            > that solve problems world wide, including Global Warming, that I doubt
            > will be solved by positive thinking it away.
            >
            > noneckster ; )
            >
            > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
            > jonathanjohns96@ wrote:
            > >
            > > I thought that I would add another comment on Ford's book.
            > >
            > > I am a former 29 year member of Eckankar. Yes, Ford was the top
            > speaker at Eckankar seminars for many many years. But eventually he saw
            > through Eckankar's lies and fabrications and felt it was his
            > responsibility to write a book correcting all the unintentional lies he
            > had been telling people while a member. Of course, when that happened,
            > members of Eckankar turned on him and said he was an agent for the Kal
            > (devil), was based on the mental plane only (not spiritual), and was
            > interested in getting rich by writing an expose about Eckankar. I know
            > what they said because I was still a member. Funny how these same
            > people were praising him the day before he left Eckankar. Yet he was
            > the same heart-based individual after he left Eckankar as before he
            > left.
            > >
            > > Also, there is no anger coming from Ford in his book. Stating that
            > it is there is a tactic that members of Eckankar use to discredit Ford.
            > I read the book; there is no anger coming from Ford. I strongly suspect
            > that the anger is being generated by the Eckists themselves who read
            > the book, and they lack the ability to differentiate things properly.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
            > "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > All,
            > > >
            > > > I was over at Amazon.com reading some of the reviews for Ford
            > Johnson's book Confessions Of A Godseeker. A person wrote a review that
            > I pretty much agreed with, but at the end stated that Ford wanted to
            > make his own spiritual movement like Eckankar's. Whether they literally
            > meant that Ford's Higher Consciousness Society resembled Eckankar is
            > something I am not sure of. while it is true that a lot of HCS does
            > resemble Eckankar, it also resembles the religions that Eckankar was
            > based on. Regardless, there a lot of very important differences between
            > Eckankar and Ford's group.
            > > >
            > > > I tried to post a follow-up comment on Amazon, but I
            > couldn't. So I decided to put it here. Everything between the two
            > dashed line is my comment which I would have posted over there.
            > > >
            > > > - - - - - - - - - -
            > > > Ford did start his own "Higher Cosciousness Society" as he
            > calls it, and it didn't impress me either. But your saying "his own
            > spiritual movement like Eckankar" is a bit wrong. Let me explain what
            > Ford DIDN'T do in his Higher Consciousness Society. These are all
            > things that Eckankar DOES DO.
            > > >
            > > > Ford
            > > > (1) did not copy other's writings and then claim them as his
            > own
            > > > (2) did not say "I am God realized. Follow me."
            > > > (3) did not say "Sing HU and visualize me."
            > > > (4) did not say "Give me your problems. I will solve them for
            > you when you are sleeping at night."
            > > > (5) did not say "If you leave my group, you will suffer in
            > astral Hells until you accept me again."
            > > > (6) does not promise that if you follow his routine that you
            > will never have to suffer through another incarnation on Earth
            > > > (7) does not insist that his way is better than everybody
            > else's,
            > > > (8) does not say that every religion in the world sprung out
            > of his Higher Consciousness Society.
            > > > (9) does not charge a membership fee of over $120 a year
            > > > (10) does not spend a ton of money advertising his group. I
            > don't think he advertizes his group at all.
            > > > (11) does not have an "initiation routine" set up in order to
            > keep his members preoccupied with something that has no intrinsic
            > meaning or value.
            > > >
            > > > At the end of your comment, you also state that Eckankar's
            > techniques are better than Ford's. I don't use either, but even if you
            > are correct, what price do people have to pay to use Eckankar's
            > techniques? You have to sign your life over to the present leader of
            > Eckankar. You have to accept him as you savior. You have to promise to
            > dedicate your life to him (that happened to me during my second
            > initiation). Ford doesn't require anything like that.
            > > > - - - - - - - - - -
            > > >
            > > > Everybody can feel free to add any additional differences.
            > > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.