4846Re: The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta" Creation in 1969
- Aug 6 8:51 AMHello 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.
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
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
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
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
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'
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
Is it necessary to even concern ourselves
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
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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>