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

4846Re: The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta" Creation in 1969

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Aug 6, 2009
      Hello paulji teen and All,
      For one thing this is an anti-Eckankar site
      and Eckankar is a religion (cult) vs. a "path."
      And, It's okay if (on the thread) people vary
      off course some with "history." In many ways
      it's all connected. Dr. Bluth's letter confirms
      what I've heard about Gail and this isn't gossip
      it's an analysis with personal observation and
      is based upon many factors.

      And, we're talking about ethics and higher
      laws than that of the U.S. copyright laws.
      When it comes to stealing and plagiarizing
      what another person has created we're talking
      about ethics and a higher standard. And,
      once again let's not overlook what the Bible
      says, "Thou Shall Not Steal."

      Societies' Laws evolved as did the consciousness
      of the land. Wouldn't a "Mahanta" be advanced
      in consciousness and, thereby, be more ethical
      than those around him in that era of time?
      Of course... if one believes the propaganda.

      The first two" rhetorical questions" should
      be answered by the one asking or stating them.
      As for EIO/ESC... it's no competition because
      we here at ESA don't have the same goals.
      They need members in order to bring in more
      money. And, Eckankar is a Religion of God
      and not a "path."

      Anyway, I've got to go now. I hope that this
      has cleared up any questions. Sometimes
      there can be an information overload, especially,
      if it's something we're not prepared to hear
      or to see at the moment.

      BTW-This site is not designed to be a forum
      to debate the validity of Eckankar. A.R.E.
      would be a good place to do that.

      If your a "fence-sitter" or an apologist you're
      going to have your feelings hurt here. And,
      if one doesn't like what's being discussed then
      don't read it or respond to it. And, Gail is fair
      game because she was a coconspirator with
      Paul and made a lot of money ($500,000) by
      selling Paul's copyrighted material back to
      Eckankar. I think it's important to know that
      Gail denounced Eckankar as being a scam of
      PT's, thus, taking the blame away from herself
      and her involvement from day one.


      paulji_teen wrote:

      Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all -
      the few doing it, should see themselves.)


      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)

      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

      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.



      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

      prometheus wrote:
      > 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, before 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
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic