uriel@oak.circa.ufl.edu (Scott Whitmore) (03/05/91)
Since a great deal of time was spent discussing the Grail Message on this group, I felt that since I'd found said Message in my school library just recently and read it, many of you out there in net-land would like to hear my book report on Abd Ru Shin's _In_The_Light_of_Truth:_The_Grail_Message_. The University of Florida has it cataloged under Dewey 204 (I think), but not under Library of Congress. The Grail Message is composed of three volumes, the first being approximately 150 pages, the second and third being about 400 pages each, in this edition. The Grail Foundation reports that it has translated this work from German, and the date of publication is listed as 1954. I find it odd that no information whatever on the original manuscript was to be found, nor was there any biographical information on the author. I am also curious why a man with an Arabic name would write a book in German; this, plus the fact that a search through religious dictionaries and encyclopedias revealed no information, leads me to believe that Abd Ru Shin is perhaps an assumed name. Do any of you out there know enough Arabic to know if "Abd Ru Shin" has any significance besides being a person's name? I found out right away that the author is very self-assured. "Do not listen to the world's religious," he says (a paraphrase) right in the opening of Vol.1. This implies that we should listen to him, rather than to adherents of any other beliefs, of course; and this attitude, while never directly expressed, permeates the work. However, this would not surprise me in a purely religious writing except for the fact that Abd Ru Shin never once tells us *why* we should listen to him. He does not say he is a prophet or a guru or an apostle, and he does not say whether he got his information from mysticism, a visit from an angel (or God Himself), or from other textual source(s) tempered by his own wisdom. In effect, we are to believe what he says just because he says it, as though everything contained in his work were patently obvious to anyone who is not actively opposed to it (those indicated by the paraphrase above, which could include nearly anyone, I'm sure). In spite of his lack of stated authority, the author does make a few references to the Bible (the Gospels especially). While my knowledge of the Bible is far from academically thorough, still I found that the author must have done some mental gymnastics of context in order to use the passages he used for the purposes for which he used them. "As a man sows, so shall he reap" is used to justify the Law of Sowing and Reaping (more about that later). Somehow, he determines by scriptural analysis that the Son of Man and the Son of God are two different people; whether this is valid, perhaps OFM will tell us, but it seems to me to violate the plain sense of the text. Bible references are few here, however, so I will not dwell upon them. The beliefs presented in the work seem to be a combination of Gnosticism, Hindu thought (Karma and Reincarnation), and Theosophy. Somehow, the author manages to pull off a fairly good synthesis; material from these sources plus a few superficial references to other sources creates a workable hybrid. However, while in Vol.1 the author states that the Truth is understandable by anyone, not just the educated, a survey of the work shows a glut of loosely-defined and glibly-flaunted terms that an uneducated person might find great difficulty learning. The inclusion of the Holy Grail seemed almost parenthetic. Gnostic tenets are explicit. It is explicitly stated at least once that "Evil and wrong exist only in gross matter [as opposed to spirit]." Spirit is in all conceivable ways "higher" than matter. As a logical end to this stated premise, the author flatly denies the viability of the resurrection of the body of Jesus (and by implication, of anyone else after him). Immorality and sin are associated with matter, and it is said that when Lucifer fell, it was a descent into coarser and coarser ethers until he attained gross matter. (How an evil thought entered the mind of a highly refined spirit in the first place is not clear.) Gnostic thought forms a vital component of Theosophy, an occult system invented some 200 years ago (please correct me if you know different, someone) that proposes a graded organization of substances in the universe: God (by whatever name) is at the top, and different levels of spiritual "matter" are steps down to the level of "matter" as we know it, Ethereal and Gross Matter. Not only does the author reveal a graded system, but this system has the very same levels as those used by Theosophists such as Alice A. Bailey. In addition, the Theosophical theory of creation is included in the work: a passive God's "emanations" filter down through the various levels of creation and manifest in various ways therein. The idea of God as passive is prevalent enough to earn its own paragraph. "The Savior is waiting...but will not come and fetch..." says Vol.2, Chapter 43. "Only by adherence to God's Laws of Creation is grace received." This is a complete and total departure from Pauline doctrine on grace, and subsequently, from orthodox Christianity, wherein man is totally dependent on God for salvation. Vol.2, Chapter 45 says that Christ's mission on earth was not to die as sacrifice for sin, but rather that his death was a foul tragedy that ended his true mission: spreading the Truth by which man was to be saved. It is the Truth, a set of Laws, that set man free, says the author. The Grail Message seems to offer no improvements on the age-old belief in Salvation by Works, which belief sets it irrevocably apart from Christianity. The Truth is presented as a passive effort on God's part which man may either believe, or not, with no interference from Him. The Hindu intertwined concepts of Karma and Reincarnation are presented under the name "Law of Sowing and Reaping." Karma dictates that a man must always receive appropriate retribution for his actions; such retribution does not always come in this life, which means that often one must suffer for one's sins in a future life. In this case, one's own negative thoughts produce ethereal "thought-forms" which surround and weigh one's spirit down, preventing him from rising from the physical planes and ascending to the spiritual. While "redemption" is mentioned, there does not seem to be much room for it in the doctrines as described, if the Christian sense of the word "redemption" is meant. I had an active headache by the time I got to Vol.3, which covers the exact features of the entities and features of the various planes of existence -- the author's writing style is very disorganized and difficult to read. Perhaps future tranlsations will be released by the Grail Foundation which include commentaries that make the whole thing easier to digest. In spite of the protest I'm sure I will receive from the Grail Message's advocates, this essay is not intended to slander that work. I am merely showing (and I believe I have shown, beyond any doubt) that the Grail Message is thoroughly separate, even diametrically opposed to, orthodox Christianity as we know it today, and rather plainly to the Bible as well. As for my own opinion of the Grail Message's contents, I'm sure it is quite clear. In the interest of fruitful discussion, please send any question or comment regarding my opinions to me in E-mail; do NOT post flames on this group. Thank you. Scott Whitmore uriel@maple.circa.ufl.edu -- Scott Whitmore Internet: uriel@maple.circa.ufl.edu 24-510 Tolbert Hall or uriel@maple.decnet%pine.circa.ufl.edu Gainesville, FL 32612 (USA) Friendly Neighborhood Standard Disclaimer "The Devil...the prowde spirit...cannot bear to be mocked." --Thomas More (?) [Gnostic thought is far older than theosophy. It is one of the earliest Christian heresies. There's some debate as to when full-fledged gnosticism started, as opposed to predecessors that simply go somewhat in the direction, but there are certainly gnostic tendencies as early as the 1st Cent., and possibly earlier. --clh]
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (03/09/91)
uriel@oak.circa.ufl.edu (Scott Whitmore) writes: >Since a great deal of time was spent discussing the Grail Message on this >group, I felt that since I'd found said Message in my school library just >recently and read it, many of you out there in net-land would like to hear >my book report on Abd Ru Shin's _In_The_Light_of_Truth:_The_Grail_Message_. >The University of Florida has it cataloged under Dewey 204 (I think), but >not under Library of Congress. Dear Mr. Whitmore, It was your own choice to make this "book report" on the Grail Message, and others' choice to heed or to ignore your opinions. For those who you have suceeded in influencing, you shall bear the responsibility. What I say to you is this: you have understood little if anything of the Grail Message, described it very poorly and superficially, and done grave injustice to "In the Light of Truth" all around. I feel sorry for you, but I can do nothing to help you other than to attempt to correct the extremely poor impressions you have given about it. Almost everything you have said about the Grail Message is flat wrong. It is much more of a reflection upon you than upon the Grail Message. At this point, I would most seriously advise you to retract your statements about the Grail Message, and admit to people that you know nothing essentially about it, and to forget your words. If you want to find peace in your heart. I have said it before, and I'll say it once again: Those who seriously and objectively seek the answers to the great spiritual questions in life may want to consider examining the Grail Message as the value of the vast knowledge which it mediates to the human spirit. The Grail Message speaks solely to earnest seekers, all others should hold aloof. For their own good. If you are content with the Bible, and the existing interpretations thereof, then by all means, please stick with the Bible. And for Mr. Whitmore's sake, please ignore his childish effort to report on what he does not know. He himself will one day be grateful that his words died out without bad effects. With best regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
crf@math.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.8.22.15.04.1991.19698@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: [commenting on Scott Whitmore's book review, deleted for space reasons] > >What I say to you is this: you have understood little if anything of the >Grail Message, described it very poorly and superficially, and done >grave injustice to "In the Light of Truth" all around. ... >Almost everything you have said about the Grail Message is flat wrong. Mark, Would you care to back up your assertion with some concrete examples? In other words, actually pulling up some of Scott's statements and showing him (and us) where he is wrong? If everything he has said is wrong, this should not be difficult to do. >I have said it before, and I'll say it once again: Those who seriously >and objectively seek the answers to the great spiritual questions in life >may want to consider examining the Grail Message as the value of the vast >knowledge which it mediates to the human spirit.... Scott has apparently done this. In his considerations, he has raised some pertinent questions which you have utterly ignored. I'll repeat some of them here: who is Abd-Ru-Shin, and why should we listen to him when he says, do not listen to any of the world's religions (and implicitly says, listen to me instead)? It seems to me that you are in no position to protest. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (03/19/91)
crf@math.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: >In article <Mar.8.22.15.04.1991.19698@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >[commenting on Scott Whitmore's book review, deleted for space reasons] >> >>What I say to you is this: you have understood little if anything of the >>Grail Message, described it very poorly and superficially, and done >>grave injustice to "In the Light of Truth" all around. ... >>Almost everything you have said about the Grail Message is flat wrong. >Mark, >Would you care to back up your assertion with some concrete examples? >In other words, actually pulling up some of Scott's statements and showing >him (and us) where he is wrong? If everything he has said is wrong, this >should not be difficult to do. Dear Mr. Ferenbaugh, no, it would not be at all difficult to do. But I shall not do so. But I shall give you a simple analogy that you can surely understand... Suppose that someone who was unfamiliar with the Bible undertook to read through it and pass judgment upon it in a matter of several months. Suppose that this person was already unfavorably predisposed towards the Bible beforehand, and consequently did not find much of value in the word of the Bible, and reported this "fact" to others. How would you feel then? This is precisely what Mr. Whitmore has done with the Grail Message, and he very well knows it. It was nothing but a crude "hatchet job", to try to justify his own point of view, as far as I can tell. As I have said before, those who are not seriously interested in new knowledge and explan- ations should stick with what they have and leave the Grail Message alone. >>I have said it before, and I'll say it once again: Those who seriously >>and objectively seek the answers to the great spiritual questions in life >>may want to consider examining the Grail Message as the value of the vast >>knowledge which it mediates to the human spirit.... >Scott has apparently done this. In his considerations, he has raised some >pertinent questions which you have utterly ignored. I'll repeat some of >them here: who is Abd-Ru-Shin, and why should we listen to him when he >says, do not listen to any of the world's religions (and implicitly says, >listen to me instead)? No, Mr. Whitmore has definitely not done this. I recently heard from some- one who has been reading the Grail Message very slowly and carefully over the past year and a half, and who has come to the same conclusion as I also have, namely, that the Grail Message is a tremendously valuable work, and that the clear explanations it mediates to mankind are quite correct. If you do not see the difference between skimming through more than a thousand pages of profound knowledge in a few months, versus studying it closely and carefully over years, then nothing I can say would convince you anyway. Regardless of the time factor, however, if one is not "open" to new knowledge, then one cannot find it in any case. As far as the identity of Abd-ru-shin, I am NOT presenting my convictions about that to people, but rather speaking clearly and specifically about the value of the work itself. I see this same phenomena here at the univer- sity. Before people will listen to a person, they want to know "who he is". Does he have a PhD? Is he "well-published"? My reply is this, that the vast knowledge of the Grail Message is itself the best and only proof necessary. Those who want to judge from externals are the same people who would have refused to listen to Christ, since He was only "the son of a carpenter"! Those who truly seek from the heart shall find -- all others shall not. And this is simple justice, is it not? >It seems to me that you are in no position to protest. You are wrong. Mr. Whitmore, as I have pointed out, is in no position to attempt a "book report" on the Grail Message. As someone who has studied the Grail Message for 14 years or more, I think I am actually in a very good position to point out the injustice that has been done here. And I must say that I do not consider such activities in any way "Christian". Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [While I can understand why you feel the way you do, I'm also not convinced it is fair to criticize Scott Whitmore. I'm not suprised that someone who has immersed himself in a document for years will find more meaning in it than someone making a first reading. But Scott can hardly be expected to spend years studying a document that does not appear to merit that study. If the only information you are prepared to give is advice to read it for ourselves, then clearly our reaction to a first reading is going to be critical. --clh]
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (03/19/91)
In response to my objection to Mr. Whitmore's attempted book report on the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin, our moderater comments: >[While I can understand why you feel the way you do, I'm also not >convinced it is fair to criticize Scott Whitmore. I'm not suprised >that someone who has immersed himself in a document for years will >find more meaning in it than someone making a first reading. But >Scott can hardly be expected to spend years studying a document that >does not appear to merit that study. If the only information you are >prepared to give is advice to read it for ourselves, then clearly our >reaction to a first reading is going to be critical. --clh] If the Mr. Whitmore's book report had simply stated that "The Grail Message clearly is not a book to be read or judged superficially, and therefore I myself cannot say anything about it." Then I would agree with you. But this is not what was done. Mr. Whitmore seemed to make conclusions about the Grail Message based upon a most superficial review of the work. Actually I myself found deep meaning in the Grail Message from the very beginning, but perhaps this was because I was able and willing to consider it in an objective and unbiased way. As far as giving information about the Grail Message, I have attempted from time to time offer explanations of serious spiritual questions from the point of view of the Grail Message. There have been those who told me that they were interested in the Grail Message, and who wanted to obtain a copy for themselves. For this reason I felt it had been worth my while to undertake various discusions in this group. I do not, however, deem it necessary nor appropriate to continue to try to present ideas from the Grail Message to people beyond a certain point. Either one is seriously seeking new knowledge or else one is content with the "status quo". As far as one's "reaction to a first reading being critical", I would say that this attitude in and of itself clearly demonstrates a lack of the requisite objectivity. Those who feel this way, should simply leave the Grail Message alone, since it is most certainly not meant for such people. It is meant for serious seekers only. I could also call to mind those who were "critical" of Jesus from the outset. Who were the ones whose hearts were open to receive His Word, and who were the ones who reacted critically without first bothering to understand? Who were the ones who were willing to listen and who were the ones who felt them- selves threatened by the new Word? It's something to think about. As always, if someone wants to say that the knowledge of the Grail Message is not to be found in the Bible, then the answer is simply that everything is NOT in the Bible, and we have the Lord's words to that effect. He could not say everything He had to say to people, and for this simple reason it would seem to behoove us to remain open to new knowledge. But this is an individual choice, naturally. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801