The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
are those who teach that this can be gained by
the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
taught that external forms were necessary for
salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
sects have their parts to play, but they are for
children, they last but temporarily. Books never
make religions, but religions make books. We
must not forget that. No book ever created God,
but God inspired all the great books. And no book
ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
The end of all religions is the realising of God in
the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
— in realising God. Ideals and methods may differ,
but that is the central point. There may be a thous-
and different radii, but they all converge to the one
centre, and that is the realisation of God: something
behind this world of sense, this world of eternal
eating and drinking and talking nonsense, this world
of false shadows and selfishness. There is that
beyond all books, beyond all creeds, beyond the
vanities of this world and it is the realisation of God
within yourself. A man may believe in all the churches
in the world, he may carry in his head all the sacred
books ever written, he may baptise himself in all the
rivers of the earth, still, if he has no perception of God,
I would class him with the rankest atheist. And a man
may have never entered a church or a mosque, nor
performed any ceremony, but if he feels God within
himself and is thereby lifted above the vanities of the
world, that man is a holy man, a saint, call him what
you will. As soon as a man stands up and says he
is right or his church is right, and all others are wrong,
he is himself all wrong. He does not know that upon
the proof of all the others depends the proof of his own.
Love and charity for the whole human race, that is the
test of true religiousness. I do not mean the sentimental
statement that all men are brothers, but that one must
feel the oneness of human life. So far as they are not
exclusive, I see that the sects and creeds are all mine;
they are all grand. They are all helping men towards the
real religion. I will add, it is good to be born in a church,
but it is bad to die there. It is good to be born a child,
but bad to remain a child. Churches, ceremonies, and
symbols are good for children, but when the child is
grown, he must burst the church or himself. We must
not remain children for ever. It is like trying to fit one
coat to all sizes and growths. I do not deprecate the
existence of sects in the world. Would to God there
were twenty millions more, for the more there are,
there will be a greater field for selection. What I do
object to is trying to fit one religion to every case.
Though all religions are essentially the same, they
must have the varieties of form produced by dissimilar
circumstances among different nations. We must each
have our own individual religion, individual so far as the
externals of it go.
[....]
- Swami Vivekananda
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm
Copyright date: Over 100 years ago!
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm
We ought to remember the words of Vivekananda about
churches, and religions in general. We could not say it
better, so let us quote him: "...A man may believe in all
the churches in the world; he may carry in his head all
the sacred books ever written; he may baptize himself
in all the rivers of the earth - still if he has no perception
of God, I would class him with the rankest atheist. And
a man may have never entered a church or a mosque,
nor performed any ceremony; but if he realizes God within
himself, and is thereby lifted above the vanities of the world,
that man is a holy man, a saint, call him what you will..."
- Julian Johnson, The Path of the Masters
"Now a study of the Divine SUGMAD is in order" said
Rebazar Tarzs, dropping upon the floor and putting his
legs one over the other in a lotus position [....]
"You don't find the SUGMAD through religion. IT's be-
yond religion of any nature, and nobody is going to seek
for IT correctly when they know not where IT is.
"The SUGMAD is beyond this world of senses, this
world of eternal eating and drinking and talking nonsense,
this world of false shadows and selfishness.
"IT is beyond all books, beyond all creeds, beyond the
vanities of the world. It is the realization of the SUGMAD
within oneself.
"A man may believe in all the churches in the world;
he may carry in his head all the sacred books ever written;
he may baptize himself in all the rivers of the earth, - still
if he has no perception of the SUGMAD, I would class
him with the rankest atheist. And a man may never
enter a church or a mosque, nor perform any ceremony;
but if he realizes the SUGMAD within himself, and is
thereby lifted above the vanities of the world, that man
is a holy man, a saint; call him what you will.
I will add that it is good to be bormn in a church, but
it is bad to die there. It is good to be born a child, but
bad to remain a child. Churches, ceremonies, symbols,
are good for children; but when a child is grown up, he
must burst, either the church or himself. [....]"
- Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell. The Far Country
***************************************************************
For those who have eyes to see, let them see! Let them
learn that Vivekananda's lecture took place over 100 yrs.
ago! That Julian Johnson's book came out in 1939. That
The Far Country - featuring Rebazar Tarzs - came out
over 30 years after that.
Add to that a familiarity by Paul Twitchell with writings
& teachings by Vivekananda and Julian Johnson and the
obvious conclusion is that Paul twitchell used Rebazar
tarzs as a "literary device" to convey the words and the
teachings of others.
And people don't understand why I question the written
history, along with the physical reality of Rebazar Tarzs.
These excerpts are but the tip of an iceberg. Moreover,
I seriously doubt the members posting in this group be-
sides myself are even familiar with the extent of plagiar-
ism and copying by Paul Twitchell.
I like the writings. Much of them. What I don't like are
the comments by others surprised by the things I say,
or others who ask when I am going to leave Eckankar.
Nor should I have to like that. IMHO.
If they want to know when I'm going to leave "their own
version" of Eckankar, I must remind them that my path
is not their path. And that is OK :)
BTW, the excerpts from Vivekananda's talk & quotes
from The Far Country illustrated in this link have not
been illustrated together before. Not that I am aware
of. Ford Johnson gave a snippet in his book, showing
the Quote from The Path of the Masters and The Far
Country. However, after looking at Vivekananda's
lecture and the chapter of The Far Country, there are
a lot more similarities than that illustrated by Ford J.
Etznab
The Far Country is no longer published. I'll repeat that: The Far
Country is no longer published.
The majority of plagiarism was in The Far Country.
You tell us nothing new, Etznab. I have been here since nearly the
beginning of A.R.E., and probably most everyone else here has been
well aware of every nuance about plagiarism as it was explored here
since day one, you flatter yourself if you believe you have some
knowledge that others are unaware of.
You prove nothing.
Nothing you say has much meaning to those who have daily experiences
for themselves.
This path of Eckankar is not all about the writings.
It's more about each persons individual experiences, and with Masters,
going through the planes and being shown various things by these
Masters. That is an amazing thing for those of us who are so fortunate
to be able to recall these experiences.
I think you mix up two different things: Some small amount of
plagiarism (was the count less than 2%? and much of that was from The
Far Country), which you can fault Paul for certainly if you like (I
could care less)....with the fact that the truth of the ECK Masters is
the foundation of Eckankar, and that is proven by the very real
experiences that so many of us are having and are aware of. That
can't be changed because someone like you has doubts and throws words
like 'myth', 'literary device' and 'pseudo religion' around, and
certainly the LEM will not change the teachings the way you would
like--because they then would not reflect the truth of our
experiences.
Jasmyn
> And people don't understand why I question the written
> history, along with the physical reality of Rebazar Tarzs.
Your are fooling yourself if you beleive that. Eveyone reading here
understands from your years of repetition that you are possessed by this
fanatical quest in your own mind to inform the world of your disbeliefs.
> These excerpts are but the tip of an iceberg.
OMG! You just plagiarized David Lane! He wrote those exact words in this
newsgroup. We can't believe anything you write anymore because of that. ;-}
That claim by David is what started my plagiarism challenge to him. It ended
with less that one percent ever being documented. If that analogy was
accurate, it would mean that 90% of what Paul wrote was plagiarized. Pay
close attention now. It's simple math. 1% is *extremely* far from being
equal to 90%
> Moreover,
> I seriously doubt the members posting in this group be-
> sides myself are even familiar with the extent of plagiar-
> ism and copying by Paul Twitchell.
Are you really serious, or just delirious? All the plagiarisms found were
posted in this newsgroup. Everyone reading this(speak up if I'm wrong) knows
that a tiny percentage of what Paul wrote was written by others first. Don't
believe it. Add them up yourself. Do the math yourself. Get back to us then
if you're not too embarrassed and would eat crow.
> I like the writings. Much of them. What I don't like are
> the comments by others surprised by the things I say,
> or others who ask when I am going to leave Eckankar.
> Nor should I have to like that. IMHO.
No one is suprised anymore. If you don't like people calling it as they
repeatedly see your assertions and actions, change your behavior.
> If they want to know when I'm going to leave "their own
> version" of Eckankar, I must remind them that my path
> is not their path. And that is OK :)
Yep, it's your karma. Let's hope _you_ find it OK.
> BTW, the excerpts from Vivekananda's talk & quotes
> from The Far Country illustrated in this link have not
> been illustrated together before. Not that I am aware
> of.
Exactly! That one, among the many other things that you are not aware of.
Which so far has only amounted to about 50 paragraphs out of about 1500...
> You tell us nothing new, Etznab.
It is baffling that he doesn't recognize that. I'm no psychiatrist, so I
won't guess at what his problem is, but it seems to be getting worse.
> I have been here since nearly the
> beginning of A.R.E., and probably most everyone else here has been
> well aware of every nuance about plagiarism as it was explored here
> since day one, you flatter yourself if you believe you have some
> knowledge that others are unaware of.
Maybe that's it? He imagines he is being of service, and that is what
motivates him?
> You prove nothing.
>
> Nothing you say has much meaning to those who have daily experiences
> for themselves.
>
> This path of Eckankar is not all about the writings.
Apparently it is for him. That's _his_ path. He 'got it on the inner'. It's
certainly not ours nor the direction Eckankar points to.
> It's more about each persons individual experiences, and with Masters,
> going through the planes and being shown various things by these
> Masters. That is an amazing thing for those of us who are so fortunate
> to be able to recall these experiences.
>
> I think you mix up two different things: Some small amount of
> plagiarism (was the count less than 2%? and much of that was from The
> Far Country),
It was, until the number of paragraphs David Lane claimed in the Far Country
where no longer taken for granted. That 400+ count was downgraded to the
actual documentation of paragraphs that were posted here. So it dropped to
.7% .007 of what Paul wrote. I'm sure there are more. Maybe even enough to
top 1%. I think that the detractors that were all juiced believing David
Lane about proving what they imagined was a huge amount of plagiarism became
discouraged and gave up when they saw how wrong they were. Nobody else seems
to care anymore either, since no one has picked up the ball they dropped at
.7%. Consciously or unconsciously they recognize that it's a huge project
they will never bring the results they want.
> which you can fault Paul for certainly if you like (I
> could care less)....with the fact that the truth of the ECK Masters is
> the foundation of Eckankar, and that is proven by the very real
> experiences that so many of us are having and are aware of. That
> can't be changed because someone like you has doubts and throws words
> like 'myth', 'literary device' and 'pseudo religion' around, and
> certainly the LEM will not change the teachings the way you would
> like--because they then would not reflect the truth of our
> experiences.
Since David lane there have been several that have strutted through this NG
believing that they would be able to change Eckankar to suit their beliefs
of how it should be run, or even destroyed. They never seem to have
recognized that they are pissing in the Ocean of Love and Mercy.
Rich~~~~~~~~Sailing the Cosmic Sea~~~~~
Yes I remember a couple of them coming through here, demanding
changes, after a while they left Eckankar.
Ford and Graham tried that too, thinking they know better than the
LEM. It never works.
Jasmyn