In my humble opinion, it's not necessary to
understand the meaning - and whether true or
false - to compile information.
Last month I compiled a lot of information. I
didn't have to understand what all of it meant,
or whether is was true or not.
http://mirrorh.com/timeline0408.html
In fact, I could take any amount of data from
written or spoken sources - regardless whether
in a language I understood or not - and compile
it.
Paul Twitchell compiled information too. The
current leader of Eckankar, Harold Klemp, even
referred to him as a "master compiler" (See: In-
ternational Youth Conference, Las Vegas, NV,
April 21, 1984).
Did Paul understand everything he compiled?
With regard to history, did he check everything
for accuracy and credibility? Or - with some of
the information gathered - was it simply "com -
piled" information?
As much as I'd like to believe that only true
and accurate information got compiled, I have
my doubts. Especially with regard for history.
Because I too have read a lot of books about
religion, cosmology, science and history, etc.
I have seen, or read, a lot of the same books
as Paul Twitchell and recognize a number of
illustrations that Paul "compiled" about these
subjects. Not only that but, with some, have
researched their evolutions and checked for
accuracy - whether or not they were based
on verifiable evidence, speculation & theory,
etc. In my opinion, not all of what gets com-
piled is the "word of God", or flawless data.
Quite a revelation, if you ask me.
Along with so many teachings come down
to us over the years, writers have asked that
we basically weigh the information ourselves
and consider it, at least. I would take that a
step further and add that one can investigate,
research, & continue the path of exploration
beyond simply accepting on blind faith all of
what gets compiled as history.
IMO, it's easy to compile information. And
if you're an avid book reader - especially the
subjects of religion, science, and history you
often find a lot of the same basic information
compiled in various different ways. Sometimes
I throw away books because what they mostly
amount to are compiled information without
anything new. And compiled information that
I read in so many other books already. Some
books are written more to make money than
they are to give out much of anything new, in
my opinion. And history is recorded in much
the same way. Especially ancient history.
According to a lecture presentation by nuclear
physicist Daniel Sewell Ward, Ph.D. to the Inter-
national Association of New Science Forum in
Fort Collins, Colorado, October 1999: "In effect,
there's still room at the top of the learning curve
for anyone interested in pursuing the matter." I
transcribed a part of this lecture in the October
1999 entry "Science Lecture / Daniel Sewell
Ward, Ph.D." @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The entire lecture can probably be found online
somewhere, I suspect, however the transcription
I compiled should probably be sufficient to convey
the basic point I am alluding to here.
It's a touchy subject when history comes down
as being "the word of God" when, in actual fact, it
amounts to something less official. Or when - and
if - it amounts to something false. It's a sensitive
subject to me - at least - because "How can one
learn from history if one is not looking at the truth
about history?"
This is not a post to boo-hoo Eckankar, or the
writings of Paul Twitchell & Eckankar in entirety.
To the contrary, I've found some of the best data
I'd ever read in most of the outer works. However,
this is basically a post about compiled information
and the evolution of HISTORY - what I've come to
learn from it.
Etznab
|
