Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4839Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta" Creation in 1969

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Aug 4 4:38 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
      over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
      the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
      they would do with it).

      Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
      to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
      And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
      some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
      body else should have known whether plagiar-
      isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
      Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
      other authors. What was Bluth's position in
      Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
      personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
      president of Eckankar?

      I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
      and that is why one was the Master and the
      other the President. What I mean is, the two
      must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.

      Etznab

      -----Original Message-----
      From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
      To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 12:21 pm
      Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta"
      Creation in 1969

       






      I was thinking about this 01/01/1969

      Mahanta event and recalled that

      Twitchell was having some trouble

      with a few disgruntled H.I.s around

      this timeframe. Paul had had a Five

      Year Plan where he was going to hand

      over the EK (LEM) leadership to another

      in 1970. However, as Eckankar began

      to take root and gr
      ow Paul changed

      his mind about handing it over. Paul

      shared his new plans and the change

      outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)

      who thought they were next in-line

      and would be taking over. They felt

      betrayed.



      Add this internal EK conflict to the

      John-Rogers problems, (and competition

      with other groups), to the negative

      comments coming from the U.S. reps

      of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang

      group and voila'!



      PT now had the reasons and need

      to create the title of "Mahanta" that

      gave him complete control and, thus,

      placed himself heads above all others.

      This title and its definition he created

      made PT the King of the Hill. No one

      could challenge or question his decisions

      since they didn't have his divine powers

      or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness

      known to mankind!



      How dare anyone to question PT's new

      "Mahanta" authority (that he created for

      himself) since it was something they could

      know nothing about because they are

      of a lower initiation and of a lower plane

      of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who

      sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),

      has the authority to guide ALL Souls on

      the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists

      tend to limit their reading to Ek books,

      or to recommended materials, it's an easy

      ploy to pull off.



      Anyway,=2
      0before Eckankar started to make

      big money Paul was as happy as a clam

      promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing

      his views of the "path." However, Paul had

      a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to

      support and impress, and she had her needs

      too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.

      Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin

      scheme where Eckists were members of her

      sales staff.



      All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar

      and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's

      why I said that this was a pivotal time and

      a complete change of direction for Eckankar.



      Prometheus



      Hello Paulji teen and All,

      I just had a few more observations

      and wanted to address some previous

      comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.



      Pji Teen:

      Secondly, is there a possibility that when

      Illuminated Way Press went to print they

      didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe

      would have anchored these passages?



      P-

      I doubt that this happened since there

      are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.

      And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other

      EK Masters as his "source" rather than

      admit to the truth of his theft.



      For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as

      his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,

      and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.



      Klemp came up with the Astral Library
      0A
      story to explain away the accusations

      of plagiarism. However, he also shot

      himself in the foot by pointing out that

      these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher

      than Astral Plane teachings!



      Pji Teen:

      Thirdly, were the copyrights expired

      on the earlier works, so he didn't think

      to footnote passages?



      P-

      It's strange that PT would give Bible

      quotes and reference the source in

      the same text. He also did this with

      other writers just as Klemp does. But,

      PT doesn't do this with regard to The

      Path of the Masters. How many footnoted

      pages are there in ALL of PT's works?

      I'm looking in the back of my combined

      Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see

      any references! Thus, he'll give it as

      he writes it. Therefore, it was an

      intentional omission when PT didn't

      mention "The Path of the Masters"

      when he uses quotes from this book.



      However, I must say that Twit was sly,

      but those are the credentials of a con-

      man. As I pointed out in the beginning

      of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used

      a quote word for word in his "The Far

      Country" page 131. Here's a partial

      quote. "Voltaire has said that religion

      is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche

      has repeated it in substance." Now,

      it seems that Julian P. Johnson was

      paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,

      and
      , thus, didn't quote them. However,

      Twitchell took Johnson's exact words

      and thoughts. Twit stole his writing

      style and his creativity! This is unethical!

      Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have

      ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any

      longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the

      benefit of the doubt since it is all based

      upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions

      and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!

      That's a distortion of other religious

      teachings including Ruhani Satsang

      and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK

      give this "source." The excuse/con is

      that It either came from the "Astral

      Library" or it came from the ECK.

      Catch-22!



      Pji Teen:

      As a side note: Paul was a journalist,

      first. One of my areas of interest is

      tracking current plagiarism in media

      and journalism - it is rampant! The

      disregard for fact-checking, and just

      recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.

      Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,

      pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way

      to do things, as well - and it just carried

      over into the Eck writings? I don't

      know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.



      P-

      IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a

      stretch of the imagination. He was

      a hack. Most of the things that he

      wrote didn't require research into

      many facts and when it did Twit

      would often make up his
      own.

      Track his Orion plagiarisms. This

      had to do with recycling old stories

      and making some minor changes

      to disguise them. And, yes, this did

      carry over to his ECKankar writings.



      Pji Teen:

      My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably

      coming through -- we've all grown

      up with plagiarism. (Think about how

      many times your parents told you

      something that probably has been

      recited for generations?) I'm not so

      ready to "shoot the messenger".

      Eckankar has and does serve a mostly

      positive purpose in the world.

      Maybe a risk at another analogy -

      if you are really thirsty - do you

      really care where the water came

      from, as long as it is safe to drink?



      P-

      I think most of our parents told us

      recycled stories about Santa Claus

      and the Easter Bunny, or old wives

      tales... or urban legends. PT wrote

      for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why

      is it that PT's Eckankar "water"

      is safe to drink? Some impurities

      are tasteless and show up over time.

      As I pointed out once before... the

      big pivot point for Twitchell was

      when he created the "Mahanta"

      title for himself in January 1969.

      This is when PT placed an enormous

      and unattainable gap between

      himself and his followers. He did

      this in order to out-do John-

      Rogers (a follower who left EK

      and started20his own religion by

      using PT's discourses etc.). And,

      Twit wanted to place himself heads

      above every other "Master" and/or

      critic (including Kirpal) by placing

      himself in a position beyond reproach.

      After all, how can anyone criticize,

      even, a self-proclaimed GOD without

      having the highest "God-Knowledge?"

      More Catch-22!



      Prometheus



      ****

      Hello Paulji teen and All,

      Interesting comments! I can recall

      that someone wrote that Paul was

      told by Orion Press not to submit

      anymore articles to them because

      he had been caught plagiarizing.



      Now, this whole episode took place

      long before Twitchell created Eckankar.

      Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his

      plagiarizing was both an unethical

      practice and an illegal behaviour.

      The magazine could have been sued

      and could have lost all credibility

      with their readers by having to place

      retractions in future editions.



      However, this incident didn't seem

      to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't

      help but lie and deceive with another's

      words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,

      for comparison, and there are more in

      the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,

      also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"

      of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul

      copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path

      from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the


      Masters" as his handbook to create his

      "new" religious sect... Eckankar.



      The thing that Paul did, creating a new

      sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)

      for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a

      Master dies and doesn't directly appoint

      a successor, or there is a disagreement

      with the choice (another has more

      followers, etc.) then another sect/faction

      is formed. This is how new (major)

      religions are created too! Local, Christian,

      Churches do the same! However, Paul,

      Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden

      the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.



      Yes, I had to use ethical standards and

      guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA

      was one standard and there are others for

      writers and researchers. When I got into

      research papers for my major the standards

      became much more stringent on footnoting

      and everything else.



      However, many of these standards concerning

      morals and ethics have been around for decades.

      Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul

      should have known about these ethical standards

      since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and

      a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian

      Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former

      librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in

      command. Gail certainly knew something about

      ethics and plagiarism.



      However, when greed becomes the focus


      and one needs to churn out books, for the

      new members, in order to makeup for lost

      time, then ethics get placed on the back

      burner. And, Paul had a track record for

      embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has

      pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul

      was doing his lying and self-promotion

      about himself and his travels at age 27,

      in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky

      while in that same year, 1935, is claiming

      to have made a trip to India. HK states that

      PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"

      trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935

      (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's

      own research into these dates! Klemp just

      didn't see that he provided the dates that

      prove that Twit was lying about meeting

      Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!

      LOL!



      Prometheus



      paulji_teen wrote:



      This topic seems to keep coming up...



      I can only speak to my own experience.

      In the 1960s in my first experience

      writing papers, in school I was taught

      one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.

      By the time I hit high school, the rules

      for this had slightly changed. By university,

      there were even more rules related to

      without giving credit, etc.



      I don't know if the plagiarism laws were

      shifting, or, as students we were just

      getting more clarity fro
      m professors.



      Paul may have thought it was okay to

      list short passages. What I don't know --

      are you finding like full pages, or full

      chapters, that word for word are identical?



      Secondly, is there a possibility that when

      Illuminated Way Press went to print they

      didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe

      would have anchored these passages?



      Thirdly, were the copyrights expired

      on the earlier works, so he didn't think

      to footnote passages?



      Today's research writers, I think, are

      more careful about plagiarism as there

      are more lawsuits and more legal and

      collegiate focus on educating writers about

      plagiarism.



      As a side note: Paul was a journalist,

      first. One of my areas of interest is

      tracking current plagiarism in media

      and journalism - it is rampant! The

      disregard for fact-checking, and just

      recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.

      Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,

      pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way

      to do things, as well - and it just carried

      over into the Eck writings? I don't

      know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.



      My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably

      coming through -- we've all grown

      up with plagiarism. (Think about how

      many times your parents told you

      something that probably has been

      recited for generations?) I'm not so
      =0
      A
      ready to "shoot the messenger".

      Eckankar has and does serve a mostly

      positive purpose in the world.

      Maybe a risk at another analogy -

      if you are really thirsty - do you

      really care where the water came

      from, as long as it is safe to drink?



      Paulji_teen
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic