Arguing Over Eckankar At A.R.E.
- In the great sea of absolutely nothing
people argue about absolutely nothing
and claim to be the true and only spokesman
for absolutely nothing.
And in doing so,
that they truly know the infinite.
For they prove
that they know
A man once climbed up to the top of the hill
and planted his flag
on a mound of absolutely nothing.
Then he returned and beat his chest
and wailed as loudly
as he could.
He said he was the highest expression of
and proclaimed himself to be a master.
He wrote books about nothing,
and these books were sold to others
who wanted to read about nothing.
And so others gathered around him
and began wailing in similar fashion
and they too felt they were in on nothing.
They too, knew they were in possession of nothing.
But then something dreadful occured.
Others claimed the nothing was stolen.
Others said they had nothing first.
Others said He never really found nothing,
and that he was lying about
having found nothing...
and they said he was a fraud of nothing.
So they all got together to argue about nothing.
They argued and argued about nothing for years
and each thought they had won the argument about nothing.
Each raised excellent points in the debate about nothing,
and each thought
the other side was mistaken about nothing.
Many became upset over nothing, and they attacked others over
Many felt they should serve the cause of nothing
by standing up for nothing.
Many felt that the were called by nothing
to point out the flaws of those
who argued over nothing.
Some were even said to have left nothing,
and that having left nothing,
they were bound to reincarnate over and over again within nothing,
until they realized that nothing was nothing, after all.
All of the issues about nothing were considered very important
by the ones
who claimed to know all about nothing
and they worked very hard and diligently
to come up with clever ways
to debate about nothing
and they tried very hard to demonstrate that those who argued with
knew absolutely nothing.
"Empty Room" wisely answered:
>knew absolutely nothing.Good analogy, but keep in mind, it is through this very process
that we come to discover this. If you realize this, then it is no
doubt because you have been through this yourself. If this process
were not an important part of our learning and growth, I suspect we
would not be here. People seldom learn from words, but people do
learn through direct experience. It all may be an illusion, but it is
an illusion with a purpose, IMO. Nothing ventured, nothing
empty room - 975th Living Truth Master (on probation)
To elaborate further on your reply, E R, now that I have a little
more time than I did the other day:
I agree that the process is important and I see nothing at all wrong
with debating Eckankar's absurd claims. I enjoy putting things into
perspective, and it does occur to me that in the eyes of the "no
thing" (if I can put it that way) none of this matters (or maybe it
all matters equally). But in our human existence, we are dealing
often with a different context, and that context reflects the
personal, human perspective. It is an error to think the human
perspective can be ignored for long, if one is human. We have to eat,
sleep, and live as we are, and we have practical things to deal with
everyday of our lives.
The point of my post on "absolutely nothing" is mainly how ridiculous
it is for anyone to act as if he has a franchise on spiritualmatters,
since that is impossible. Such a concept contradicts itself by its
very premise. This is one of the main criticisms that keeps
recurring to me about Eckankar. If the great void or "no-thing"
(sugmad, god, dao, etc) has no form, no shape, no division, no inside
or outside, no separateness, then it doesn't make sense that it could
be subject to one group or entity having a special claim over it, for
that would imply that the great void is finite. If the great void is
the only true "reality", and all else is only "appearances" or
relativity, then all of the differentiating and parceling that
religions indulge in are part of the world of relativity. Its really
all much ado about nothing.
In my view, a good philosophy or religion, no matter what myriad
shape it takes, will exhibit a palpable sense of humility and
awareness of limitation, not only of its teachings, but also of its
teachers, and of its place in the life of its followers. A religion
that is taken too seriously by its followers often signifies a
religion that, as a religious entity, presumes to have intrinsic
divinity in its own right. I think such presumptions violate the very
premise upon which such religions are founded.
I think, when you get right down to it, it is the astounding lack of
humility in Eckankar and in its teachers and followers that gets
Eckankar in trouble. And all of the lies, the willing trivialization
of acts of plagiarism and invented histories, and the deceptive
dialectic ju jitsu (sp) that is employed demonstrates profoundly the
lack of humility. Who would care if people want to chant hu and do
soul travel exercises, so long as they don't employ the use of nasty
threats, fear, and claims of religious exclusivity to control and