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

5343Re: Digest Number 1073

Expand Messages
  • rumizappo
    Apr 29, 2005
      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, ShabdaHu <shabdahu@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi TC.
      >
      > Wow. What extraordinary reading methods you use; just cut out
      actually comprehending anything you're reading and even rearrange the
      meaning of it.
      >
      > How did you get from this, the quote from my e-mail:
      >
      > "And I'm not referring to simply the progenitor's of Eckankar,
      which are Sant Mat and Radhaosoami - they're actually not high on the
      real enlightened scale among gurus. They've infected their paths with
      a lot of personality and personal proclivities that they wish to make
      seem God authoritative and which are not."
      >
      > To this, the response from your e-mail:
      >
      > "A teaching `real high on the enlightened scale among gurus' is
      merely the system you're presently practicing, receiving a high
      rating because you're getting results. Other people are getting
      results, too. For example, Catholics have a teaching high on
      the `enlightened scale,' among only begotten sons, and one backed up
      by scripture."
      >
      > There was nothing in my statement remotely saying that I was
      practicing a system with gurus that I was saying, "were not real high
      on the enlightened scale". You even have in there that I'm rating
      them highly. And then you missed altogether the more salient point
      that many inject their personalities into the path and try to make
      their personal opinions seem God authoritative.
      >
      > Also, you weren't being invited to inform me of what I meant by any
      of my statements that you are apparently incapable of comprehending
      what they really meant, anyway, and any sincere conversationalist
      would never utilize that tactic. They would ask a question, not look
      anxious to drop their pretentious baloney on whomever they could, and
      go to the extremes of rearranging meanings to make the opportunity
      appear for dropping pretentious baloney. You're completely off in
      your surmisals of why I said what I said, what I actually meant, and
      your "loosely true" statement about Paul appropriations sounds like
      it was lifted from an Eck apolopathetics book. Your other statement
      about Sant Mat/Radhasoami not being the source of Eckankar's
      cosmologies and psychology, is just flat out ignorant or devised as
      more Eck apolopathetics. Of course, you didn't know that I was
      referring to their cosmology/psychology, and the fact that all in
      Eckankar has inherited that history more particularly than
      > any other, because you didn't ask and you're not interested in the
      details of those particular subjects.
      >
      > In cases like that, you should, in order not to appear as though
      you need to dream up BS to look superior, just simply say, "I don't
      understand this point, I'm a blaise 'it's all one' kind of person and
      I can't relate to non-blaise 'it's all one' kinds of people (that
      fact was one reason this list was created, btw, in case you missed
      that blazingly obvious point, too - the extreme separtism of
      Eckankar/it's tendency to trash other paths, which they inherited
      from their parent path of SM/Rad., is one reason this list exists -
      because people got real sick of the lying, separtism notions - you
      might want to pick up that point to be a little more in step here).
      >
      > Or just admit that you're on an agenda on this list that you can't
      be more honest in speaking about because it's actually against other
      major points in the list's agenda.
      >
      > And then you go on to make yourself appear spiritually eclectic and
      like who you're speaking to isn't. And that's after you
      slash/rearrange other's writings and show no capacity at even
      attempting to understand their communications? It's a wonder you were
      able to pick up in your readings that other paths, like Buddhism,
      Christianity, etc., experience results. It must have suited something
      in your manipulations to see that, because it's obvious that when it
      doesn't suit your manipulations, you studiously don't comprehend
      anything.
      >
      > Manipulations and phony baloney are wreaking from your post here.
      Your form of teaching eclectic notions, which doesn't really feel
      like your truer motives - it's all been so well wrapped to come off
      as Eck apolopathetics, and come off as condscending besides, are not
      appreciated. If you can't be sincere and eye-to-eye with people with
      whom you're writing, it's doubtful you are the same with anything
      spiritual in your life, and you might want to work on that problem to
      get to the point where you have anything truly valuable to say. Using
      quality spiritual notions to hide low quality, dishonest motives
      isn't really one of the brighter things to be doing with "spiritual
      things".
      >
      > And what's this garbage?:
      >
      > "A university upper division theology class is a little too removed
      from an unenlightened consumerism and uncritical examination of
      popular culture and received knowledge".
      >
      > You think people are too stupid to get highly detailed about their
      paths/yoga/gurus knowledge, while they are also realizing, or should
      be treated as such because they're simply unenlightened "consumers"
      and can't handle any more complex knowledges? And that they
      shouldn't be subjected to anything upper division so they can remain
      being mushrooms being fed BS in the dark? Or is this simply the "I
      can't dazzle them with brilliance, so I'll attempt to baffle them
      with BS?" tactics?
      >
      > I'm really not looking for an answer by asking that question. It
      was just so obviously designed to make you look like you're bright,
      at least in your view, that I just had to give it a little star show
      here. What you're about is most obvious in the whole of your e-mail.
      >
      > Bye.
      >
      > shabdahu.
      >
      >
      > Thomas Bennett <thomascbennett@y...> wrote:
      > ShabdaHu.
      >
      > . . . the progenitor's of Eckankar, which are
      >
      > Sant Mat and Radhaosoami - they're actually not high on the real
      >
      > enlightened scale among gurus. [To which is replied:]
      >
      >
      >
      > T.C.
      >
      > So, let's fit it together. Sant Mat and Radhaosoami are not the
      source of Twitchells's system. You're just generalizing, to make a
      point about Twitchell's debt to the shabd paths. Twitchell is endbted
      to many sources, and so, for example, is Christianity, for that
      matter. Twitchell's method of appropriation is just more obvious in
      the method of compilation.
      >
      >
      >
      > A university upper division theology class is a little too removed
      from an unenlightened consumerism and uncritical examination of
      popular culture and received knowledge.
      >
      >
      >
      > A teaching `real high on the enlightened scale among gurus' is
      merely the system you're presently practicing, receiving a high
      rating because you're getting results. Other people are getting
      results, too. For example, Catholics have a teaching high on
      the `enlightened scale,' among only begotten sons, and one backed up
      by scripture.
      >
      >
      >
      > And so do Eckists, and Buddhists, and everybody else, for that
      matter. Cultural relativism may not be one's forte around here. In an
      eternal NOW, you raise the consciousness by meditation, prayer,
      contemplation, karma yoga, motorcycle maintanence, and mindfulness
      while loading the dishwasher or driving to work. `Truth is One, the
      local gurus give it all the different names.' (Ekam Sat Vipre,
      Bahudha Vedanta.)
      >
      >
      >
      > >T.C.
      >
      > > The dream master as terminology is only semantics. [To which is
      replied:]
      >
      >
      >
      > >>Sharon.
      >
      > Nope, the "dream master" stuff is NOT just semantics. The cult
      teaches that Klemp *is* the dream master. At at official cult
      intros on dreams, his photo, which is displayed at *all*
      eckfunctions, is held up for the benefit of inquiring newbies. And
      they're told that this is the dream
      >
      > master, the person you should visualize when you're starting your
      study
      >
      > of your dreams. [To which is replied:]
      >
      >
      >
      > T.C.
      >
      > What do you base your conclusion on? Their experience of the Dream
      Master? Or yours?
      >
      >
      >
      > Let them have their spiritual experience. The Hopi Indians can have
      the Katchinas. Three little children can have their Miracle of
      Fatima. Its OK, you can have yours. (Heck Bashin.) With regard to the
      universality of symbolisms over the world, please visit Joseph
      Campbell, "The Power of Myth," at your local library or bookstore
      shelf (religion/philosophy).
      >
      >
      >
      > They're ALL the Dream Master, realized through the individual's
      consciousness.
      >
      >
      >
      > Choose your tupper-ware.
      >
      >
      >
      > The point is, one's relationship within the ecstatic experience of
      [somebody or other's] spiritual realization IS the real destination.
      To outsiders, one's teacher may look like anybody else's. We mustn't
      get hung up on semantics.
      >
      >
      >
      > Think of a world religion responsible for the emergence of modern
      European civilization. One that still has a profound place in the
      lives of believers. Those who adhere to the practices of this
      religion have a photo, too. Yet, we are not attacking *them.*
      >
      >
      >
      > Similarly, within the shabdha teaching, there is, as well, a
      vehicle for the enlightened. Where is the contradiction? It isn't
      until one tries to make comparisons, or impose one's religious or
      intellectual orientation on the world, that there is a contradiction.
      That's when we discover all the undeniable dichotomies and
      irreconcilable differences of other points of view.
      >
      >
      >
      > In simplest terms, different systems are not be commensurate with
      one another. Is that such a vast stretch of the imagination? Eck is
      all hooey. So, oddly enough, is 'not eck' a lot of hooey, doesn't it
      stand to reason.
      >
      >
      >
      > Contact with absolute reality without the mask of cultural or
      religious identifications is upper-division spiritual practice, for
      there is no name attached. Therefore, grass-hopper, these are merely
      guises.
      >
      >
      >
      > The world is a description, Carlitos, one which one must live with,
      change, or locate one's cubic centemeter of chance, none the less. We
      peel away the fabric of any description through a spiritual practice
      and relationship with the Divine 'not-eck.' Then, through
      the `intercession' of the savior, master, guru, spiritual shabd
      current, secret docoder ring, with practice over a lifetime our old
      material states of consciousness are `absolved' and 'forgiven' within
      the totality of ourselves as spiritual 'not-eck' beings.
      >
      >
      >
      > So, Eckists want to do it their way. Let them have their way and
      Truth. Lets have our Cocoa-puffs. They can have their Captian Crunch.
      And we can have our 'not-eck.' I wouldn't be at all surprised if
      every enlightened telivision commercial sent from advertising hades
      tries to shares something of the luminous 'not-eck' experience of the
      no-thing soul.
      >
      >
      >
      > >>Fishnik.
      >
      > just yesterday i phoned to discuss her exodus [from Eckankar], and
      discovered that she had not only stayed in the cult, but doubled her
      commitment. she told me that on the very night that we had discussed
      twitchells plagarism she had a terrible inner dream experience. she
      had been confronted with a horrible terrifying void in the dream, and
      she had awakened in a panic. [To which is replied:]
      >
      >
      >
      > T.C.
      >
      > Don't panic. People connected with an initiatory program to the
      light and sound current are brought into aligment through a carrier
      wave, or protective enclosure of the master-matrix, the spiritual
      configuration of a 14th initiate from Valley of Tirmir Drive. Alchemy
      symbolized this with a perfectly (or hermetically) sealed container,
      whereby the primodial material (soul, psyche) is brought to
      perfection through a spectrum of colours, on the way to the lapis
      excelis (somehtin which, also, doesn't exist).
      >
      >
      >
      > Things which don't exist, we needn't worry ourselves with here.
      >
      >
      >
      > I should leave off here now, with Alf and Sharon and ShabdaHu and
      Fishnik and all our hubris.
      >
      >
      >
      > luv
      >
      > T.C.
      >
      > eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:03:14 -0000
      > From: al_radzik
      > Subject: Re: There's a certain lack of humility
      >
      >
      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "cohutche" wrote:
      > >
      > > In most of the posts I've read so far on this board.
      > >
      > > (I am a new member).
      > >
      > > Simon
      > >
      >
      > Hi Simon....
      > Don't worry, I don't bite!
      > Just remember.....humility is not a criteria for being here. I am a
      > loud, crude, brash and boisterous Eck basher and don't like beating
      > around the bush or mince words....
      >
      > Alf
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic