On Apr 12, 7:34=A0pm, "Rich" <deadm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Etznab wrote:
> > =A0 =A0From your message, Rich:
>
> > "I'd also say that within the tree view, later on Paul wanted to
> > highlight
> > those closest to the roots of the unfolding model of Eckankar he was
> > creating. =A0He never stopped refining the teachings and had more in
> > process
> > when he translated. So trying to pin down specifics is problematical
> > in that
> > these were inner perceptions of his which may not all have been put in
> > print
> > or updated/changed as he said he planned to do."
>
> > =A0 =A0I liked the last point you shared there.
>
> > *********
>
> > =A0 =A0As to the way you and I tend to describe things, it seems to
> > me that the generation gap might play a role in the differences.
>
> Sure, that's a factor. There is also personality, emotional and mental
> differences, and karmatic needs.
>
> > =A0 =A0Much of the things people from years ago already knew, myself
> > I had to go back and learn the most of it. Oftentimes without the
> > sup****t of my "church" community. In other words, I was wanting
> > to look at things that a lot of other people didn't want to talk
> > about.
>
> Yes, your wants were/are different that their wants.
>
> At the recent Springtime Seminar I spontaneously found myself having
lunch=
> with a RESA from Africa who I didn't know, and an acquaintance newer to
> Eckankar I've met a few times over the last four years. I brought up the
> topic of Darwin's translation and the acquaintance asked, "Who is
Darwin?"=
> :-0 =A0I answered something like, 'He was the LEM who had passed the
> leader****p of Eckankar on to Harold and started his own path when there
wa=
s
> a falling out later'. =A0The person said, 'Oh yeah. =A0I just didn't
> know/recognize his name'. And that was it. They didn't want to talk
about =
it
> and the conversation moved on to other things. It was past history that
he=
ld
> no interest in their current personal spiritual path.
>
> > At least, not at formal Eckankar events.
>
> Yes, of course, especially in group settings at official Eckankar
events.
> Much of your historical research is for your needs and wants, which is
fin=
e.
> But that doesn't fit well with the goal the Eckankar teachings center
on:
> personal experience of God. For most people history has little to do
with
> their personal spiritual growth. =A0It's akin to what I wrote about in a
> previous post. It's tangential. =A0Also, some people have simply not
resol=
ved
> for themselves some of the issues you want to delve into, so they are
just=
> not comfortable going there even in private, and especially in public.
>
> > =A0 =A0It wasn't (and isn't) easy for me wanting to learn about things
> > before my time, and when the people who were there don't care
> > to discuss it. It makes things harder.
>
> Consider that the topic may be hard for them too.
>
> > =A0 =A0There is a saying, that to truly learn about and master some-
> > thing it is often better to start from scratch without any previous
> > influence. This way one gets only what the teacher is giving on
> > the subject or skill to be learned. It doesn't have to compete with
> > other things a person had learned on the subject from other. Any
> > techniques that might be different. (Well, maybe I butcherd that
> > description :)
>
> lol =A0Yes, you did butcher it. :-) but I got the drift.
>
> > =A0 =A01987, OK. Think about it. This is what I mean. Everything in
> > the history of Eckankar - all of the outer teachings and records
> > of history before that date - I had to somehow find.
>
> You didn't have to; you choose to, yes?
>
> > And when I
> > found a lot of it I was coming to look at it from a post-1987 view.
> > I might describe things differently from you or Doug, for this and
> > other reasons. If I knew the perspective, or from where you were
> > coming, then I might be better prepared to understand what you
> > were actually saying (and why), I suspect. But in spite of that
> > (and our differences) you and Doug have been very helpful with
> > pointing out details with the outer past - and other things. Also
> > Michael Turner and others - not all of them Eckists - have con-
> > tributed (more or less) to my overall experience on many things.
>
> > =A0 =A0The dynamic tension between "personal experience" and
> > "organized religion" are the two sides to the "spinning" coin
> > I see.
>
> Oy vay... always spinning wit da tension.<winking> =A0Relax already.
<vbg>=
>
> With Aloha,
> ` =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0o
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0~/|
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 _/ |\
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 / =A0| \
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -/ =A0 | =A0\
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0_/____|___\_
> Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rich,
Yes, I didn't have to, but I chose to look at the past.
Not everybody wants to go there, I agree. And seldom,
if ever, do I go there during Eckankar functions & events
unless the topic comes up, or others are going there too.
I tend to go there where others who want to go there
have gone. Like TruthSeeker, E.S.A. & A.R.E. Archives
at these places are full of it. And it's history.
BTW, spin a coin fast enough and you'll be lucky to
see any sides at all :)
To every thing there is a season ... and ya know ...
the Earth is spinning so fast, I can't even tell it :)(:
|
