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

Re: I May Be God or Something Greater. Maybe. Excuse me if this post is a repeat

Expand Messages
  • yoga_nidra
    nice work just a guess, but maybe the person who thought mahanta is in TPOTM was thinking of eckankar, which is in Johnson s book.
    Message 1 of 29 , Apr 18 8:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      nice work

      just a guess, but maybe the person who thought "mahanta" is in TPOTM was thinking of "eckankar," which is in Johnson's book.



      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, thomas lee <thomaslee40@...> wrote:
      >
      > The entire book "The Path of the Masters" can be read online for free at this site: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePathOfTheMasters
      >
      > I did a search in this book using Google Books
      > > the word Mahanta does not appear in this book
      > > there are a few occurrences of the word Mahatma in this book
      > http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=2&id=ZecSAAAAMAAJ&dq=path+of+masters+johnson&q=mahatma#search_anchor
      >
      > I did a general search for Mahanta in all available books using Google Books
      > > the word Mahanta is a common last name in India
      > > I found this book in which the term Mahanta appears to be used as a spiritual
      > title for a person in India
      > http://books.google.com/books?id=pSMLz85WO1QC&pg=PA4&dq=mahanta&lr=&cd=45#v=onepage&q=mahanta&f=false
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: "etznab@..." <etznab@...>
      > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 4:27:03 PM
      > Subject: Re: [eckankartruth] Re: I May Be God or Something Greater. Maybe. Excuse me if this post is a repeat
      >
      >
      >
      > OK. But that website had a quote by me. And
      > it said then, as I said the other day, I don't be-
      > lieve "mahanta" is in Johnson's book. I said the
      > word in Johnson's book was "mahatma".
      >
      > Example:
      >
      > Why does this interest me? Because I also
      > recall finding the word devotee and/or devotion
      > used to describe the word "mahatma". This is
      > the word that appears in Julian Johnson's book.
      > I don't believe the word "mahanta" is there - in
      > Path of the Masters.
      >
      > http://www.jlaforum s.com/viewtopic. php?p=9297157
      >
      > Etznab
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: yoga_nidra <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
      > To: eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Sat, Apr 17, 2010 1:25 am
      > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: I May Be God or Something Greater. Maybe.
      > Excuse me if this post is a repeat
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com, etznab@ wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > "Where did Twitchell get the word Mahanta?
      > > Most likely from Julian Johnson, as Mahanta
      > > is used in Johnson's The Path of the Masters,
      > > a book Twitchell was undeniably familiar with."
      > >
      > > A word in Julian Johnson's book is mahatma,
      > > not mahanta. I don't know that mahanta is in
      > > that book - The Path of the Masters.
      >
      > I don't know for sure either, I was taking the word of the website I
      > cited.
      >
      > Here is something David Lane wrote:
      >
      > "When Twitchell first started writing about Eckankar he more or less
      > used terminology which was based upon shabd yoga. However, he quickly
      > began to take on terms which were not in Radhasoami literature and
      > incorporate them into the larger theology of Eckankar, as witnessed in
      > The Shariyat-Ki- Sugmad. In so doing he made Eckankar an eclectic
      > teaching, even though its major emphasis was Indian in origin. The term
      > Mahanta is a case in point. Although the term usually translates as
      > "one who is in charge of a temple" or "head of an ashram," Twitchell
      > utilized it as meaning: "The Living Eck Master.""
      >
      > http://webspace. webring.com/ people/de/ eckcult/rsch3. html
      >
      > >
      > > (If someone happens to find mahanta listed
      > > in POTM, please cite page number.)
      > >
      > > Here is something else to consider about the
      > > knowledge of Sanskrit familiar to Eckankar in
      > > its formative stages.
      > >
      > > A June 1980 letter by Louis Bluth has, in part:
      > >
      > > "[....] He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books
      > > on Radha Soami and copied a large share from
      > > them. I helped him write the Herb book and went
      > > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so
      > > basically much of the material is good because
      > > it is copied. [....]"
      > >
      > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/eckankarhi story/message/ 1434
      > >
      > > What this tells me is that Dr. Louis Bluth - the
      > > president of Eckankar in the early years - was
      > > familiar with Sanskrit. I think it was about 1966
      > > when Bluth met Paul Twitchell. I think L. Bluth
      > > was a former Radha Soami student of about 17
      > > years!
      > >
      > > "In a lecture by Bluth that I attended, Bluth stated
      > > that he followed Radhasoami for 17 years before he
      > > joined Eckankar. Bluth was an acupuncturist as well
      > > as an MD (a bit of trivia for you, Etznab.) He was
      > > rather full of himself, in my view. - Tianyue
      > >
      > > [Based on A.R.E. post 03/09/10]
      > >
      > >
      > http://groups. google.com/ group/alt. religion. eckankar/ browse_thread/ thread/9a1844ccb 34936ef?hl= en#
      > >
      > > BTW. The appearance of "mahanta" in Eckankar
      > > publications apparently didn't surface until 1968,
      > > or 1969.
      > >
      > > In 1969 the word appeared in The Flute of God and
      > > in 1969 the large caps version appeared in Wisdom
      > > Notes.
      > >
      > > For some reason this word was chosen and then
      > > became popular around 1968 and 1969. And this
      > > was joined to the words "Living Eck Master".
      > >
      > > The Eckankar definition for "Mahanta" does not
      > > appear in The Path of the Masters far as I can
      > > tell. The large caps form of MAHANTA was trade-
      > > marked by Eckankar corporation probably in the
      > > later 60s.
      > >
      > > Chapter 3 of The Path of the Masters, by Julian
      > > Johnson (called: The Masters and Their Duties),
      > > on p. 178 has "The Masters themselves divide all
      > > mahatmas into four classes:"
      > >
      > > The classes are written in italics and are called:
      > > sikh, sadhu, sant, and param sant.
      > >
      > > Over on p. 179: it appears (to me) that Johnson
      > > used the words Satguru & param sant somewhat
      > > synomymously. So he doesn't appear to use the
      > > word Mahanta, but Mahatma. Eckankar decided
      > > to use the word Mahanta (instead of Mahatma) -
      > > it appears to me - in the title of it's leadership. It
      > > also coined a somewhat unique meaning for the
      > > word, in my opinion.
      > >
      > > The Eckankar Lexicon definition for Sat Guru
      > > has near the end; See also Living ECK Master;
      > > Mahanta. So regardless the word used, to me
      > > it looks like each group became partial to one
      > > term or another. Even when the meanings are
      > > generically (for the most part) the same - and
      > > used for a similar designation. I've seen in my
      > > research synonymous definitions spelled out
      > > for both mahatma and mahanta on some Web
      > > sites. So I wonder how similar they really are.
      > >
      > > Etznab
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: yoga_nidra no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
      > > To: eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com
      > > Sent: Fri, Apr 16, 2010 3:27 pm
      > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: I May Be God or Something Greater.
      > Maybe.
      > > Excuse me if this post is a repeat
      > >
      > > Â
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com, thomas lee
      > > thomaslee40@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Paul had been known to change the spelling of words in order
      > to
      > > create new terms for his new religion.
      > > > He probably got the idea for Mahanta from the word Mahatma.
      > The
      > > word Mahatma means great soul. It was used by Theosophy to
      > describe a
      > > highly evolved person who would oversee the spiritual growth of
      > > individuals. A Mahatma could also be considered to be a Master.
      > >
      > > Twitchell didn't coin the term "mahanta," as it's a sanskrit word
      > that
      > > means "grand." Mahanta is used religious title in hinduism,
      > though
      > > Twitchell's use of the term as Grand Poobah of the Universe is
      > > something he himself came up with.
      > >
      > > Mahanta can also be a name.
      > >
      > > http://babynameswor ld.parentsconnec t.com/meaning_ of_Mahanta. html
      > >
      > > Where did Twitchell get the word Mahanta? Most likely from Julian
      > > Johnson, as Mahanta is used in Johnson's The Path of the Masters,
      > a
      > > book Twitchell was undeniably familiar with.
      > >
      > > http://www.jlaforum s.com/viewtopic. php?p=9297157
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
      > > > From: "etznab@" etznab@
      > > > To: eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 1:00:19 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [eckankartruth] Re: I May Be God or Something
      > > Greater. Maybe. Excuse me if this post is a repeat
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Sorry, Tian Yue. Think I forgot to hit "Reply All"
      > > > the first time I sent this.
      > > >
      > > > ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********
      > > >
      > > > Searching evolution for the "Mahanta" term
      > > > as used by Paul Twitchell and Eckankar, I asked
      > > > myself: "What books were published by Eckankar
      > > > prior to its official founding in October 1965? And
      > > > of those publications, which ones mentioned the
      > > > word "mahanta"? (see Forward to The Tiger's Fang,
      > > > by Brad Steiger. It mentions "mahantas".)
      > > >
      > > > Two books come to mind. Introduction to Eckankar
      > > > and The Flute of God. Information from these were
      > > > published in Orion Magazine in 1964 and 1966
      > > > (respectively) , I believe. (The Tiger's Fang was 1967)
      > > >
      > > > Introduction to Eckankar doesn't appear to mention
      > > > "Mahanta" in the Index section. However, The Flute
      > > > of God mentions Mahanta once, and Mahanta con-
      > > > sciousness twice. (I assume that the later appeared
      > > > in the 1966 Orion series, but I'm not sure.)
      > > >
      > > > The Wisdom Notes book by Paul Twitchell shows
      > > > the terms "ECK Master" and "living ECK Master",
      > > > used in 1968. "MAHANTA" appears in January 1969
      > > > and "MAHANTA - the living ECK Master" in February
      > > > 1970. (Eckankar claimed non-profit status in July of
      > > > 1970, I believe.)
      > > >
      > > > So I want to ask myself: "When exactly did the term
      > > > "The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master" first appear?
      > > > And when did it first become associated with a person?"
      > > >
      > > > Julian Johnson's book The Path of the Masters men-
      > > > tions the term living Master, I believe. And Paul T. would
      > > > have been familiar with that term.
      > > >
      > > > I don't find the term "mahanta" used by Eckankar prior
      > > > to October 1965. Perhaps it first appeared in 1966 with
      > > > Orion Magazine: The Flute of God installments?
      > > >
      > > > If this time period is correct, it appears to me the
      > > > association with a person might have evolved for
      > > > legal reasons. I say this because religions were
      > > > usually asked to give the name of their leader when
      > > > applying for certain status. The State wanted to
      > > > know who was the head of it.
      > > >
      > > > Is this how something like a highest "state of
      > > > consciousness" , or "Inner Master" ("Mahanta")
      > > > evolved to become associated with one single
      > > > person at a time? Because only one leader of
      > > > the Eckankar organization exists at a time?
      > > >
      > > > If that were the case, I am not saying it bodes
      > > > well for history (IMO).
      > > >
      > > > Etznab
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: tomleafeater tianyue@earthlink. net>
      > > > To: eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Sent: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 10:43 pm
      > > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: I May Be God or Something
      > Greater.
      > > Maybe.
      > > > Excuse me if this post is a repeat
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Jonathan,
      > > >
      > > > One of Twitchell's tactics was to claim he stood for certain
      > > principles
      > > > or truisms, but then do exactly the opposite. Of course he
      > claimed
      > > such
      > > > things as "people should not worship the personality. " But
      > then
      > > he
      > > > contradicted that by declaring himself, a person, the Master
      > of
      > > the
      > > > Universe.
      > > >
      > > > Notice in the quote I provided in my previous post that he
      > > referred to
      > > > the Mahanta with the pronoun, "He"? When gender is assigned,
      > that
      > > > indicates the so-called Mahanta is a person, and as a person,
      > he
      > > is
      > > > thus a personality. In the same breath, he says the Mahanta,
      > the
      > > Living
      > > > Eck Master (emphasizing "living," as in a living person) is
      > not
      > > the
      > > > body, but soul. Yet soul has no gender. So he's referring to
      > the
      > > > Mahanta as HE, indicating gender and personality, and as
      > LIVING,
      > > > indicating a physical embodiment (again indicating
      > personality)
      > > and on
      > > > the other hand claiming the Mahanta is not the body, but soul.
      > > >
      > > > He's trying to have this both ways, which creates cognitive
      > > dissonance
      > > > in the follower. Clearly, he wanted his followers to think of
      > him,
      > > the
      > > > man, as the Mahanta, and to give further evidence of this, he
      > was
      > > > introduced as "the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master" when he
      > went on
      > > > stage.
      > > >
      > > > Eckists like to claim the Mahanta is not the person, but the
      > truth
      > > is,
      > > > for all practical purposes, it is a person who is given that
      > > title, and
      > > > is introduced with that title, and identified in writings
      > with
      > > that
      > > > title.
      > > >
      > > > Eckankar is all about worship of personality, because
      > Eckankar is
      > > built
      > > > around the "Living Master" concept. And that personality can
      > > either
      > > > give you initiations and status, or take them away and kick
      > you
      > > out of
      > > > eckankar. That personality controls the entire organization.
      > That
      > > > personality dictates what the doctrines will be, and even can
      > > remove
      > > > the initiations of the person who anointed him as master!
      > > >
      > > > It doesn't get more personal than that. Eckists try to deny
      > this,
      > > but
      > > > the evidence is blatantly clear.
      > > >
      > > > Anyway, I notice you sidestepped my question. But I will
      > answer it
      > > for
      > > > you: Paul Twitchell was a lying plagiarist who ripped off
      > other
      > > > author's writings to create his own path so that he could be
      > the
      > > chief
      > > > personality in his own personality cult. He used manipulative
      > > tactics
      > > > aimed at controlling and creating dependency in his
      > followers. The
      > > > facts bear this out.
      > > >
      > > > Paul Twitchell was no master. And it is not factual to claim
      > > otherwise.
      > > > And unlike you, I have no qualms at all about stating this,
      > > because it
      > > > is a cold, hard truth. In my view, your comment that you
      > don't
      > > "concern
      > > > yourself with the question" is a rather evasive answer. Just
      > where
      > > do
      > > > you stand? Are eckankar's alleged masters genuine, or not?
      > Pardon
      > > me if
      > > > I say you seem a bit conflicted.
      > > >
      > > > But that's okay. In no way do I want to push you to do what
      > you're
      > > not
      > > > ready to do. I understand that it can be difficult to make
      > the
      > > final
      > > > decision to truly walk away from eckankar, severe the
      > > relationship, and
      > > > realize it to be what it is: A fraud.
      > > >
      > > > Speaking for myself only,
      > > >
      > > > Leaf
      > > >
      > > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com, jonathanjohns96
      > > > <no_reply@ ...> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Leaf,
      > > > >
      > > > > I listened to a cassette tape by Twitchell. He
      > emphasized
      > > that
      > > > people should not worship the personality. He emphasized that
      > he
      > > didn't
      > > > want to see Eckankar turned into a personality cult. So that
      > is
      > > the
      > > > impression that I got.
      > > > >
      > > > > If you have other observations on Twitchell then please
      > post
      > > them
      > > > because I see them as a welcome addition to this message
      > board. I
      > > don't
      > > > know whether I have ever seen comments about Twitchell from
      > > someone who
      > > > was in Eckankar when Twitchell was the LEM. I realize that
      > you may
      > > have
      > > > already posted this.
      > > > >
      > > > > As far as Twitchell being a master. When I was a member
      > of
      > > > Eckankar I obviously thought that he was. Now, I really don't
      > even
      > > > concern myself with the question. I believe that each of us
      > is our
      > > own
      > > > master, meaning we are responsible for our own spiritual
      > > unfoldment.
      > > > Nobody else is. When a person calls themselves a master AND
      > starts
      > > > acting like they can advise everyone else on their personal
      > > unfoldment,
      > > > that is when I have a problem with that person. Twitchell and
      > all
      > > the
      > > > other LEMs could have simply taught people stuff, but not act
      > like
      > > they
      > > > are taking care of your spiritual life for you. People should
      > look
      > > at
      > > > themselves as their own master and do it themselves. In the
      > end, I
      > > > don't think any of the LEMs are any more spiritually evolved
      > than
      > > their
      > > > followers. It's all a moot point to even discuss it because I
      > > should be
      > > > concerned with my own spiritual unfoldment, not other
      > people's.
      > > > >
      > > > > Jonathan
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com, "tomleafeater"
      > > > <tianyue@ > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Jonathan,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > In regards to worship of masters, and the notion
      > you
      > > have
      > > > that Paul Twitchell "tried to tone down all of that," and
      > that you
      > > > think of "Klemp as the main one who has become more
      > egotistical, "
      > > I
      > > > just have to say, as person who was in eckankar when PT was
      > alive,
      > > your
      > > > assumption is absolutely incorrect. Where did you get that
      > > impression
      > > > about Twitchell?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Twitchell was worshiped as much if not even more as
      > > Klemp,
      > > > and the worship was deliberately engendered by Twitchell.
      > While in
      > > > today's eckankar, Klemp is withdrawing and letting others run
      > the
      > > org,
      > > > PT was highly visible. There were Paulji T-Shirts, Paulji
      > full
      > > size
      > > > wall posters, Paulji songs, Paulji photos, drawings, ad
      > nauseum.
      > > People
      > > > practically fainted when he came into the room. They would
      > stand
      > > in
      > > > line for long periods to get close to receive the "darshan"
      > and to
      > > > shake his hand to feel then spiritual "shock" of electricity,
      > and
      > > would
      > > > gather in hallways afterwords to ask each other, "did you
      > feel the
      > > > shock?" Twitchell was literally thought to be all powerful and
      > > > omniscient, capable of anything.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Question: Do you believe Paul Twitchell was a
      > Master, or
      > > was
      > > > enlightened, or serving a spiritual purpose, or directed by
      > inner
      > > > masters? I'm very curious to know your honest answer to this.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > But let's allow PT to speak for himself to clear up
      > all
      > > > doubt. Here's what PT had to say about himself:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "The Mahanta, the Living Eck Master, exceeds all the
      > > > principles, beliefs, and faith in Adepts and Saviors. He is
      > > responsible
      > > > for all those who are the faithful within the ECK. At the
      > same
      > > time, He
      > > > must overlook and see that those in the churches and various
      > > faiths are
      > > > also taken care of. He shoulders the worlds problems and
      > looks at
      > > the
      > > > major disasters, earthquakes, wars and other problems of
      > mankind
      > > as
      > > > part of His duty to work out the karmic conditions of the
      > human
      > > race.
      > > > Not only does He become the upholder and the inspiration to
      > the
      > > human
      > > > race on earth, but He also takes care of the spiritual
      > affairs of
      > > life
      > > > on other planets and universes, that of the beings and
      > entities
      > > within
      > > > the psychic worlds, and those souls fortunate to reach the
      > higher
      > > > planes of god. His task is tremendous, and although He is
      > > light-hearted
      > > > at times and seemingly without thought of world conditions,
      > He is
      > > ever
      > > > in the Atma Sarup (soul body) watching and guarding those
      > nearest
      > > His
      > > > heart, and the populations of the various worlds, planes and
      > > universes.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Therefore, we find that the Mahanta is not only the
      > > world
      > > > savior, but that of the world of worlds, all planets, all
      > psychic
      > > > planes, and the spiritual regions. He is the Savior of the
      > Worlds
      > > of
      > > > God. This is not the physical man as you can see and talk
      > with,
      > > but the
      > > > spiritual body which is the Atma Sarup (soul body), which is
      > the
      > > > spiritual body of all the Worlds of God. In other words, He
      > is the
      > > ECK
      > > > Itself, and because the ECK is the basis of all life, the
      > > spiritual
      > > > essence which flows out of the SUGMAD, the Ocean of Love and
      > > Mercy, He
      > > > is IT. This is the spiritual body which is in all things and
      > which
      > > is
      > > > the creative function of life. Therefore, we find the Mahanta
      > in
      > > every
      > > > man, creature, plant and mineral, as well as in all other
      > forms of
      > > > life. His physical body is the only representation of the
      > channel
      > > > through which the ECK flows. "
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Letters to a Chela, by Paul Twitchell
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com,
      > jonathanjohns96
      > > > <no_reply@ > wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Harrison,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > "You are your own master" simply means that
      > YOU are
      > > in
      > > > charge of yourself, YOU are responsible for yourself. In
      > other
      > > words,
      > > > nobody else is, and it is in error to give YOUR own
      > responsibility
      > > to
      > > > someone else such as Klemp, thinking that they will help you
      > > because
      > > > YOU are the one to do it. That's all it means.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > You went off on the word "master" but in my
      > reply I
      > > > already told you,
      > > > > > > when you realize that you are your own master
      > > you're not
      > > > supposed to be egotistical or use it to think you are better
      > than
      > > > others. Are you actually reading what I say? But I agree with
      > you
      > > that
      > > > a lot of people have given the word "master" a bad name so I
      > > understand
      > > > why you have major problems with it.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I know you don't care, but for others reading
      > my
      > > > response, none of the spiritual beings I had contact with had
      > any
      > > ego.
      > > > They didn't require me to kowtow to them at all. None in the
      > > least.
      > > > There was a related story about Paul Twitchell where he was
      > > reported to
      > > > have said to one of the Eck masters "Master, I have a
      > question."
      > > The
      > > > Eck master replied "I am not your master, but go ahead and
      > ask
      > > your
      > > > question anyway." That's what I am talking about.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Actually, it is the East where the most
      > extreme
      > > worship
      > > > of masters occurs. If you look at the devotees in India it is
      > easy
      > > to
      > > > see how much they worship their masters. Twitchell actually
      > tried
      > > to
      > > > tone down all of that. I see Klemp as the main one who has
      > become
      > > more
      > > > egotistical.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > But no matter what, as soon as someone says "I
      > am
      > > God
      > > > realized" it seems that a lot of people automatically start
      > > worshiping
      > > > the person. So my view is this, if someone says "I am God
      > > realized" and
      > > > then starts gathering followers, they have already "failed
      > the
      > > test"
      > > > because they have let their ego get the best of them.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > The people who realize that they are their own
      > > master
      > > > (figuratively speaking) and pursue their enlightenment on
      > their
      > > own
      > > > without gathering followers are the ones in my opinion who
      > have
      > > "passed
      > > > the test" if you want to use that terminology and way of
      > looking
      > > at
      > > > things.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Jonathan
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com,
      > > harrisonferrel
      > > > <no_reply@ > wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > First, Jonathan, no reflection on you as
      > a
      > > person,
      > > > because I don't know you. I imagine you are a nice guy, but
      > your
      > > reply
      > > > sounds to me like more horseshit. It is based on no knowledge
      > or
      > > > ability to assess my situation. It's just perpetuating the
      > same
      > > > nonsense that is already well known to eckankar ÃÆ'¯Â¿Â½
      > assumptions
      > > and
      > > > rationalization.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > We can rationalize "experiences" until we
      > are
      > > blue
      > > > in the face. But this is only guessing. And these are guesses
      > > based on
      > > > no good reason at all. It's time we come to the conclusion
      > that
      > > the
      > > > mind gives us images for a personal reason. More often than
      > not,
      > > there
      > > > is no reason to read into these images anything more than the
      > > workings
      > > > of the imagination. As Freud once said, and I paraphrase,
      > > "Sometimes a
      > > > cigar in your dream is just a cigar."
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I am not a master of anything or anything
      > > close to
      > > > a master. In fact, I would challenge ANYBODY to prove that he
      > or
      > > she is
      > > > a master. This word, master, is used without care or respect.
      > It
      > > has
      > > > little meaning in the West.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > My mind is capable of creating a plethora
      > of
      > > images
      > > > and scenarios that are of no significance to the real world.
      > By
      > > > analogy, I can take ten buckets of paint and throw them at a
      > > canvas. If
      > > > you want to say that the end result is meaningful art that
      > holds a
      > > > message, then you're dabbling in the absurd without any
      > evidence
      > > to
      > > > back up your claims.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I did read Johnson's book. That guy, at
      > the
      > > time I
      > > > read it, was on his own ego trip, still holding on to the
      > hope of
      > > > something valuable from his eckankar experience. His book
      > isn't
      > > very
      > > > good or helpful. David Lane's cuts to the truth. And I got
      > far
      > > more out
      > > > of Sharon's posts and those of Tom and others associated with
      > this
      > > > forum, because they were able to leave behind the eckankar
      > > overtones.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > From your analysis of my experiences and
      > > visions,
      > > > you simply are concocting a meaning. You don't know me and
      > you
      > > don't
      > > > know the inner workings of my mind. So what you're doing is
      > like a
      > > > psychologist analyzing a patient and offering a diagnosis
      > based on
      > > a
      > > > single letter the patient once wrote. It's just plain wrong
      > to do.
      > > It's
      > > > not only flippant, but it's negligent as well.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Regarding morimitsu, I would hazard to
      > guess
      > > that
      > > > he was "handpicked" because he goes along with the
      > perpetuation of
      > > > klemp's program of lies, deceit and manipulation. He's a good
      > > > candidate to work the lunacy pedals.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > The idea of coming up with explanations
      > for
      > > > experiences, especially those that are not your own, is sheer
      > > folly.
      > > > But equally ridiculous is the interpretation of one's own
      > imagery
      > > or
      > > > "experiences" without critical thinking and, as I said in my
      > > original
      > > > post, without exhausting all other possible explanations.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Eckankar does a good job at relieving
      > people
      > > of
      > > > their critical minds and the earnest, unencumbered pursuit of
      > > truth.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups. com,
      > > > jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@ > wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Harrison,
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I believe you inner experiences were
      > > real. And
      > > > I believe that they were just for you. They were almost
      > certainly
      > > > telling you that "You are a master too." That is something
      > that
      > > Ford
      > > > Johnson emphasized many times in his book. I mention Ford
      > only
      > > because
      > > > a lot of people are familiar with him, but many people have
      > not
      > > had the
      > > > time to read his book.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > So getting back to your inner
      > > experiences.
      > > > They were telling you "You are a master too." It's true that
      > this
      > > type
      > > > of inner experience would not sit well with Klemp (to put it
      > > mildly).
      > > > So what was happening is that YOUR inner experiences (just
      > for you
      > > > only) were telling you that were you were getting close to
      > the
      > > time
      > > > when you were ready to leave Eckankar. And I will caution you
      > > about one
      > > > thing. Just because the experiences were telling you that
      > "You are
      > > your
      > > > own master" didn't mean that you should be an egomaniac and
      > (1)
      > > think
      > > > that you are superior to others or (2) start your own
      > religion. It
      > > was
      > > > just telling you (1) you are now the master of your own
      > destiny
      > > and (2)
      > > > you don't need other masters and/or Eckankar anymore.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > From this point on I am no longer
      > talking
      > > > about you specifically, but rather engaging in a general
      > > discussion.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Regarding Phil Morimitsu. His book
      > was
      > > > hand-picked by Klemp because his experiences supported
      > Twitchell's
      > > > experiences, plus the general writings of Eckankar all the
      > way.
      > > The
      > > > problem, as you evidently realize, is that many Eckists inner
      > > > experiences are nothing like they are "supposed" to be. And
      > worse
      > > than
      > > > that, when you ask the local HI or ESA about it, they
      > generally
      > > have no
      > > > clue either. And asking Klemp on the Physical Plane what is
      > going
      > > on is
      > > > the worst idea of all. Graham Forsyth learned all about that
      > to
      > > the
      > > > benefit of all of us who have also had inner experiences that
      > > didn't
      > > > match what Eckankar said they should be.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I still remember something that I
      > read on
      > > the
      > > > Internet long before I left Eckankar. A man was telling a
      > story
      > > about
      > > > how he joined Eckankar, did a soul travel exercise, and
      > promptly
      > > left
      > > > his body. He was definitely somewhere, but as the
      > emphatically put
      > > it,
      > > > he stated that Klemp was nowhere to be found!!! You know how
      > the
      > > > exercises always state that the master will be waiting for
      > you
      > > there.
      > > > Well this guy was very upset that nobody was there!
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > So lots of people have inner
      > experiences
      > > > contrary to what Eckankar tells them is going to happen. And
      > when
      > > they
      > > > do, there is no legitimate help from anyone in Eckankar. I
      > think
      > > it is
      > > > actually a major reason why a lot of people leave Eckankar,
      > but it
      > > is
      > > > rarely discussed. I have a theory that it is too personal, or
      > > people
      > > > are embarrassed to talk about it. I don't know. I'm not
      > > specifically
      > > > talking about you now. I'm just thinking out loud about
      > possible
      > > > reasons.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I once told a fellow member that all
      > the
      > > books
      > > > in Eckankar seemed namby pamby. This was after my inner
      > > experiences
      > > > made me feel that way. She recommended the book "The Rosetta
      > Stone
      > > Of
      > > > God." I never read it, but evidently it wasn't your standard
      > Eck
      > > book.
      > > > I later heard that the author left Eckankar. It seems to be
      > > another
      > > > example of somebody having different experiences, and before
      > you
      > > know
      > > > it, they are leaving Eckankar.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Jonathan
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@ yahoogroups.
      > com,
      > > > harrisonferrel <no_reply@ > wrote:
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > When I was in Eckankar, I was
      > > completely
      > > > amazing, experience-wise. The stuff I used to dream and the
      > > contents of
      > > > my contemplations made me something superior to all human
      > beings,
      > > > including the masters and the living eck master. I was really
      > > > something. I had "experiences" that showed in no uncertain
      > terms
      > > that
      > > > the eck masters came to me for advice and consultation. I was
      > on a
      > > > throne and they were subservient to me. I was at all the
      > major
      > > events
      > > > in the caves and caverns and secret spaces.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > So what do you do with this
      > kind of
      > > thing?
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Luckily, I am not a deluded
      > person,
      > > a
      > > > narcissist, a psychopath or a psychotic or other such order
      > of
      > > deranged
      > > > characterizations. So these kinds of experiences set off a
      > little
      > > bell
      > > > that made me question everything about eckankar and the
      > deluded
      > > nutjob
      > > > pretenders from klemp to twitchell to morimitsu whose
      > fantastic
      > > > rantings are unbelievable because, frankly, they are
      > > un-believe-able.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > When you have experiences that
      > show
      > > you
      > > > to be downtrodden and unworthy, eckists, including klemp, are
      > > quick to
      > > > tell you it's because you need the light or some other such
      > crap.
      > > When
      > > > you have the kind of experiences I had, they want nothing to
      > do
      > > with
      > > > you. It makes you competition, or worse. What's worse? It
      > scares
      > > them
      > > > because they know they are making their shit up, so it's
      > scary and
      > > > threatens to upset the whole cult.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > I've come to see past lives and
      > all
      > > other
      > > > dreams and workings of the brain and imagination as unworthy
      > of
      > > much of
      > > > my thought or attention. Clearly, a lot, if not all, of it is
      > just
      > > > nonsense and the workings of the mind. It has nothing to do
      > with
      > > any
      > > > sense of reality here or elsewhere. Surely, a sincere mind
      > would
      > > want
      > > > to exhaust all other possible explanation before landing upon
      > a
      > > > satisfying answer.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Why people believe klemp,
      > twitchell
      > > or
      > > > morimitsu is beyond the normal, discriminating, street smart
      > mind.
      > > It
      > > > has only to do with being fooled and nothing else. I was
      > amazed,
      > > years
      > > > ago when I read morimitsu's book as a monk. Years later I
      > found a
      > > > couple of similar books that predated his of very similar
      > subject
      > > > matter and experiences. Another twitchell in the making, I
      > thought.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Following my 12 year stint with
      > > eckankar,
      > > > I left and looked into just about every other possible
      > explanation
      > > for
      > > > what eckankar teaches as being this or that. I found that
      > > eckankar, as
      > > > a cult, is all about massaging the truth, inventing
      > definitions
      > > for old
      > > > words, lying to people and, of course, stealing (as evidenced
      > in
      > > the
      > > > writings of David Lane and many others, including the good
      > people
      > > in
      > > > this particular posting group who have meticulously shown
      > > innumerable
      > > > plagiarisms that make up the foundation of eck teachings).
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Serious delving into the human
      > mind,
      > > > Buddhism and psychology shows that what goes on in dreams and
      > the
      > > > imagination is not to be taken literally. Almost all of it is
      > a
      > > > metaphor. But to the unaware, eckankar provides an
      > encouraging,
      > > (and in
      > > > too many cases) believable, explanation for past life
      > "memories,"
      > > out
      > > > of body experiences, "inner" experiences and the like.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > I can only imagine that if
      > harold
      > > klemp
      > > > had "inner experiences" anywhere close to the ones I've had
      > he
      > > would
      > > > take them as real and allow them to merely boost his already
      > > distorted
      > > > sense of self.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Eckankar is a disservice, to
      > say the
      > > > least, for anybody, especially those like us who entered the
      > cult
      > > with
      > > > an earnest desire to learn, improve, expand, grow and become
      > > better
      > > > people by finding answers and techniques. I'll never agree
      > with
      > > the
      > > > diagnosis that it is a harmless cult that has at least a some
      > good
      > > to
      > > > give to its members. It's a jumbled waste of time with a liar
      > and
      > > cheat
      > > > at the helm.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • jonathanjohns96
      Note: This is an old thread that I am resurrecting. Yesterday, I accidentally ran into a lady from India whom I know a bit. She is a very intelligent lady from
      Message 2 of 29 , Aug 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Note: This is an old thread that I am resurrecting.

        Yesterday, I accidentally ran into a lady from India whom I know a bit. She is a very intelligent lady from India who is from the state of Bihar. She is probably a Brahmin, but I am not certain of that.

        I had to ask her one question "How many Hindus in India actually follow a Guru?" Her reply was "About 30%." She didn't hesitate in her answer. And she didn't act like it was a difficult question to answer.

        That is the only answer I have so far, so that is the number I am personally going with for now.

        I always like to get information from local citizens because I figure that they have a better idea than we Americans do.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.