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

4845Re: The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta" Creation in 1969

Expand Messages
  • paulji_teen
    Aug 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.)

      Yikes????!

      I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads for where Paul did his research or other past details (setting aside the plagiarism issue)as it helps anchor the history for Eckankar. I don't know why EIO doesn't just bring this out - this might be where you could help - merge both - it's interesting history and the path likely would be stronger on the other side of all this coming out. It would 'clean up the foundation' of Eckankar - or whatever you want to call the teachings which have been brought out by many masters.

      Personally, I'm not concerned what vocabulary Paul wanted to use. One of the first things I did when I went to an international university was to ask the students who spoke Arabic, or Pushtu, or knew Sanskrit or were Sufis for insight into the Eck vocabulary. I loved learning about the source of the words and how they directly translated the words. For instance in Hinduism there (I'm not good on the spelling here) "Eckumkar"? The words Paul created or chose just helped "brand" Eckankar. Paul was coming from a business model - not that of a church.

      My bigger concern is asking you...

      1)What is it - "costing you" - to hold on to your "attitude" - where you are 'at' on all this?

      2) How are you - "benefiting" - by holding on to where you are at on all this?

      3) Do you feel you are now in a competition with EIO and the path?


      It's a rhetorical question. Not looking for an answer.

      I'm hearing in some comments, something I sometimes do. My "winning formula" at times as an investigative researcher, is that I can slip into "righteous" /"smug" mode and instead of helping people learn something new and important, I sometimes cross the line and can sound bitter, or put people off...certainly not a way to 'win' people's insight, or consideration, or gain followers for my information. This is sort of mixed in of like a habit and complaint. (Ex: "here EIO goes again, blah, blah, blah..." and "why can't HK just do "x"?!)

      On any life situations like this, I'm getting better at catching myself and seeing - am I just being 'righteous'? Am I just whining and acting out like a 5-year-old who won't give up harping on something? Am I slipping from 'coming from love' to 'coming from being a brat'?

      I've had to learn to take a big step back and see that I don't have all the information, and I likely have human blindspots, and if I had more information (answers to questions I wouldn't think to even ask yet), maybe, just maybe I would see things differently.

      I am asking an open question and kindly - "what are your goals here?" You all are providing a lot of great historical information, so if your goal is to inform, you are doing a great job....but, to me, a couple of posters are starting to land as 1) angry and bitter vs. neutral about discussing "what was and is", 2)will you feel you have achieved a victory of sorts if more people leave after you have 'exposed' the information? 3) is there room for others to draw a different conclusion from their experiences while members, or after reading your information? Are you unattached to the outcome? Do you 'care' if some readers leave Eckankar, while others may elect to stay, and others continue to 'fence-sit'? Is there room for 'all' in this forum?

      I only know what I am reading from you...just saying some people's emotions are leading ahead of the facts in these past postings. Maybe I am the only one willing to say something here. To me, some people are crossing the 'line' perhaps? yes? in straying away from the sub-topic issue of plagiarism and discussing the more primary topic of history (fact), to now "attacking" Gail and Paul for their relationship or other (opinion) reasons. Picking on their relationship, to me, is coming down to a gossip level with neither of them here to comment - and is it even our 'business' why they got together?

      As far as I know, neither did anything considered illegal at that time by the people in a position to do something about it - and - if the plagiarism was a copyright issue, at the time, were any civil suits filed for this? So, if the original writers didn't care, or their estate -holdes didn't care, maybe it is possible that we can all let it go as well? Then, we can focus on the rich history, from even the other sources. It's sort of like, if you catch your neighbour's spouse stepping out on their spouse - then learn they have an open relationship - are you going to gossip about the cheating spouse? Is that spouse 'cheating' if the other spouse doesn't care? Thus my point with plagiarism - if the writers, or their estate-holders didn't care enough to file a civil suit or complaint, should we be 'judging this'?
      (and if you are aware of a lawsuit for this, post it; I think there were only rumours that Kirpal wasn't 'happy' about Tiger's Fang...)

      Just asking, if it feels 'right' - please, all of us, let's take a giant step back and get some perspective on our writing. The forum may be pushing people away who would greatly benefit from all the hard work in posting that has gone on here, and the history in the files.

      At the risk of paraphrasing Gail from one of her talks - she mentioned before speaking Paul had trained her to think: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? Before speaking her mind. (Hindu Kush Mountain Boys + 1 did a song about it, as well) Thus, do we know the truth about their relationship? Is it necessary to even concern ourselves with it? Is it kind to attack Gail? (Paul might be a little more fair game since he is gone now, but only as far as his delivery of the creation of Eckankar.)

      Like I said, I've certainly "done this, too" - and I've made requests of my friends to 'call me on it' when I go in this direction of landing as 'righteous', so I can back off and start recognizing it...and it has helped me to spot it in others, now, too.

      Anyway, for some of you this will "fit" and others may feel I am talking about you, when I am not. Still others, hopefully will see themselves and take my suggestions to heart.

      Can we focus on the history here - Paul, Path of the Masters, Sufism, wherever it all came from? To me, this is the interesting part. I want to learn the history, not the gossip.

      Kindly,

      Paulji_teen

      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      > Â
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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