Etznab wrote:
> "The literal foundation for the written outer works
> of Eckankar is history." No?
Yes, it's 'history'. But when the written works have the contradictions
which you often point out, which history? :-) Whose history? Which
writer?
Who edited them? Are the most recent versions the literal foundation? Is
it
those written first or is it those updated? Why were they
changed/updated...
new data, research, cover-up ;-)or better way to express the
cir***stances?
Is the corrosponding astral and causal history the same as physical? Which
was the writer writing about?
No, it's not history. The primary foundation of the written works is the
ECK
being translated/filtered into written words. Should such words be viewed
with strict interpretations? Was the focus of the Eckankar writings ever
history beyond ways that the Light and Sound has manifested?
Should any expression of ECK be taken literally?
There are too many possible answers for me to be concerned one way or
another. For me the literal foundation is the meaning behind the words as
I
understand them... and that changes with my perceptive growth.
Do you take what I write literally?
Especially with spiritual expressions, why exclude history from personal
experience/perception, thus relegating it to group think? Seems the
antithesis of what I've learned about Self-Realization.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
|
