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

Re: [eckankartruth] Returning to my roots of skepticism

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    [....] Essentially, too many of us are led to accept completely implausible ideas as facts just because some person of authority, or a group of convinced
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 21 7:15 PM
      "[....] Essentially, too many of us are led to accept
      completely implausible ideas as facts just because
      some person of authority, or a group of convinced
      people, or an author, lays them out for us in some
      seemingly sensible (or even confusing) manner."

      When somebody tells a story, as if it happened
      like an event on Earth in the past, is it not kosher
      to seek the source for the history? I mean, for the
      events that happened even before any of us were
      born and yet someone today is claiming to know
      all about the story details?

      Also, if people are listening to a story (one that
      did supposedly happen in their lifetime, or in the
      not too distant past), and if the listener was not
      an active witness then would it not be kosher to
      seek the story-teller's source? I mean, the actual
      source? Like, Where did they get their information?

      IMO, this could probably put a stop to people
      going round telling stories about history as if they
      are authorities based on actual experience of the
      events.

      Etznab

      -----Original Message-----
      From: harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 3:29 pm
      Subject: [eckankartruth] Returning to my roots of skepticism

       






      Skepticism is a healthy attribute that we tend to lose over time. In
      fact, I lost a great deal of it fooling around with the nonsense of
      eckankar.



      Here's
      a curious thought by physicist Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted
      World, which I highly recommend if you're not afraid of some objective
      thinking...



      "Spurious accounts that snare the gullible are readily available.
      Skeptical treatments are much harder to find. Skepticism does not sell
      well. A Bright and curious person who relies entirely on popular
      culture to be informed about something like Atlantis [or fill in your
      fairy tale of choice] is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to
      come upon a fable treated uncritically than a sober and balanced
      assessment."



      The [] bracket was my insertion. Essentially, too many of us are led to
      accept completely implausible ideas as facts just because some person
      of authority, or a group of convinced people, or an author, lays them
      out for us in some seemingly sensible (or even confusing) manner.
    • etznab@aol.com
      Basically, I accepted the history about Eckankar and Eck Masters because Who was I to question? At least, I did so for about 15 years. After Ford Johnson s
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 21 9:08 PM
        Basically, I accepted the history about Eckankar
        and Eck Masters because Who was I to question?
        At least, I did so for about 15 years.

        After Ford Johnson's book, though, and reading
        material by David Lane and Doug Marman I got the
        impression that lines between fact and fiction were
        (in some places) a blur.

        Later on, after buying a copy of Julian Johnson's
        Path Of The Masters, and reading it, there seemed
        to be a real need to confirm the facts about whether
        I accepted certain actual fictions and myth for literal
        truth.

        The very real problem, IMO, seems to lie in what
        might be called the "realm of religion". A place that
        is not so easy to substantiate. Not when myths are
        (in some instances) the substance of church history.

        Then again, finding quotes by Eck Masters, and
        illustrations for Eckankar dogma existing in books
        and discourses written, or spoken, years before the
        official founding of Eckankar begged attention. IMO.
        It begged attention for what it appeared to suggest
        about the context (fact or fiction) of history for the
        Eckankar Masters and popular church dogma.

        So, it seems to me, that one option for a member
        of religion is not to question the history and source
        of church dogma. And another option is to question
        so long as you are not a member.

        Those two are probably the most common, IMO.
        Another option, however, I find to be more rare has
        0Apeople who continue on as members, but who also
        continue to question and explore the actual context
        (fact or fiction) of what they had read and / or were
        told.

        The last (third) option is most difficult. If you ask
        me. It appears to be most challenging.

        Etznab



        -----Original Message-----
        From: etznab@...
        To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 9:15 pm
        Subject: Re: [eckankartruth] Returning to my roots of skepticism

         






        "[....] Essentially, too many of us are led to accept

        completely implausible ideas as facts just because

        some person of authority, or a group of convinced

        people, or an author, lays them out for us in some

        seemingly sensible (or even confusing) manner."



        When somebody tells a story, as if it happened

        like an event on Earth in the past, is it not kosher

        to seek the source for the history? I mean, for the

        events that happened even before any of us were

        born and yet someone today is claiming to know

        all about the story details?



        Also, if people are listening to a story (one that

        did supposedly happen in their lifetime, or in the

        not too distant past), and if the listener was not

        an active witness then would it not be kosher to

        seek the story-teller's source? I mean, the actual

        source? Like, Where did they get their information?



        IMO,
        this could probably put a stop to people

        going round telling stories about history as if they

        are authorities based on actual experience of the

        events.



        Etznab



        -----Original Message-----

        From: harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>

        To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com

        Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 3:29 pm

        Subject: [eckankartruth] Returning to my roots of skepticism



         



        Skepticism is a healthy attribute that we tend to lose over time. In

        fact, I lost a great deal of it fooling around with the nonsense of

        eckankar.



        Here's

        a curious thought by physicist Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted

        World, which I highly recommend if you're not afraid of some objective

        thinking...



        "Spurious accounts that snare the gullible are readily available.

        Skeptical treatments are much harder to find. Skepticism does not sell

        well. A Bright and curious person who relies entirely on popular

        culture to be informed about something like Atlantis [or fill in your

        fairy tale of choice] is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to

        come upon a fable treated uncritically than a sober and balanced

        assessment."



        The [] bracket was my insertion. Essentially, too many of us are led to

        accept completely implausible ideas as facts just because some person

        of authority, or a group of convinced people, or an author, lays them


        out for us in some seemingly sensible (or even confusing) manner.
      • Ken Pearson
        Wow. Great discussion. I am Ken, new here. ... From: prometheus_973 Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Returning to my roots of
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 22 12:25 AM
          Wow. Great discussion. I am Ken, new here.

          --- On Fri, 8/21/09, prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...> wrote:

          From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
          Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Returning to my roots of skepticism
          To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 11:23 PM

           
          Hello Harrison and All,
          When I first joined Eckankar I was
          told that skepticism was good and
          that it was okay to ask questions.
          I was, also, told to give the teachings
          the benefit of the doubt and to
          accept things, until, I could disprove
          them. This is a Catch-22 because
          "proof" is subjective. Thus, the need
          for a "Master" to tell you what you
          should do to get higher... and then
          he rewards you with fake initiations
          for your decades of loyalty. But,
          these did fool you into believing
          you were making progress "as if"
          you actually were... and that felt
          good... for a time.

          Of course, who was I to question
          the "Mahanta" and the Holy Books
          of Eckankar! Thus, the outer questioning
          of the outer EK Church's Dogma had
          to cease in order for me to "grow"
          even more spiritually. Silence, surrender,
          and service are devices used to distract,
          intimidate, and prevent people from
          using logic and critical thinking (skepticism) .

          Therefore, one's need for "belief" in
          Eckankar's dogma became as universal,
          as it was/is with other religions. The
          only unique things about Eckankar are
          copyrighted. Otherwise, Eckankar is
          Sant Mat without the lust-chastity/
          passion-virtue comparison and without
          the vegan lifestyle.

          Prometheus

          harrisonferrel wrote:

          Skepticism is a healthy attribute
          that we tend to lose over time.
          In fact, I lost a great deal of it
          fooling around with the nonsense
          of eckankar.

          Here's a curious thought by physicist
          Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World,
          which I highly recommend if you're
          not afraid of some objective thinking...

          "Spurious accounts that snare the
          gullible are readily available. Skeptical
          treatments are much harder to find.
          Skepticism does not sell well. A Bright
          and curious person who relies entirely
          on popular culture to be informed
          about something like Atlantis [or fill
          in your fairy tale of choice] is hundreds
          or thousands of times more likely to
          come upon a fable treated uncritically
          than a sober and balanced assessment."

          The [ ] bracket was my insertion. Essentially,
          too many of us are led to accept completely
          implausible ideas as facts just because some
          person of authority, or a group of convinced
          people, or an author, lays them out for us in
          some seemingly sensible (or even confusing)
          manner.


        • harrisonferrel
          Etznab; This is an excellent point. It is the absolute crux of what I spoke about a few posts ago. Of course we have the right to ask for proof of any
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 23 8:37 PM
            Etznab;

            This is an excellent point. It is the absolute crux of what I spoke about a few posts ago. Of course we have the right to ask for proof of any statement. Being told we are too young or too inexperienced or too low on the totem pole to understand is just complete crap. It is a red flag that somebody is trying to get away with manipulation and it's time to quickly find the exit.

            I did ask myself way back in my beginning eck years, about 20 years ago, where in history does it mention eckankar or ANY of the so-called masters? As a student of history, I should have found the non-answer a red flag, but I stayed and considered more lies. What a convenient lie it is to say, "Well, you've never heard of eckankar because it was secret and has only recently come out." What a crock! Children use such miserable excuses.

            Tommy: Can you fly?
            Billy: Yes
            Tommy: Prove it.
            Billy: I don't have to. I fly all the time when you're not looking.


            I laughed way back when when somebody discovered two cross roads on street signs in Mexico that read Rebazar and Tarsz. It was just a simple reminder of what a con eckankar is and how contemptible are klemp and the others.



            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
            >
            > "[....] Essentially, too many of us are led to accept
            > completely implausible ideas as facts just because
            > some person of authority, or a group of convinced
            > people, or an author, lays them out for us in some
            > seemingly sensible (or even confusing) manner."
            >
            > When somebody tells a story, as if it happened
            > like an event on Earth in the past, is it not kosher
            > to seek the source for the history? I mean, for the
            > events that happened even before any of us were
            > born and yet someone today is claiming to know
            > all about the story details?
            >
            > Also, if people are listening to a story (one that
            > did supposedly happen in their lifetime, or in the
            > not too distant past), and if the listener was not
            > an active witness then would it not be kosher to
            > seek the story-teller's source? I mean, the actual
            > source? Like, Where did they get their information?
            >
            > IMO, this could probably put a stop to people
            > going round telling stories about history as if they
            > are authorities based on actual experience of the
            > events.
            >
            > Etznab
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
            > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 3:29 pm
            > Subject: [eckankartruth] Returning to my roots of skepticism
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Skepticism is a healthy attribute that we tend to lose over time. In
            > fact, I lost a great deal of it fooling around with the nonsense of
            > eckankar.
            >
            >
            >
            > Here's
            > a curious thought by physicist Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted
            > World, which I highly recommend if you're not afraid of some objective
            > thinking...
            >
            >
            >
            > "Spurious accounts that snare the gullible are readily available.
            > Skeptical treatments are much harder to find. Skepticism does not sell
            > well. A Bright and curious person who relies entirely on popular
            > culture to be informed about something like Atlantis [or fill in your
            > fairy tale of choice] is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to
            > come upon a fable treated uncritically than a sober and balanced
            > assessment."
            >
            >
            >
            > The [] bracket was my insertion. Essentially, too many of us are led to
            > accept completely implausible ideas as facts just because some person
            > of authority, or a group of convinced people, or an author, lays them
            > out for us in some seemingly sensible (or even confusing) manner.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.