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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Sep 18, 2010
    • 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

      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


      --- 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.