Re: Zs Chela's Spin from an Old Post on A.R.E.
- Hi Mish,
Maybe Kent knows who this "Zs chela" from A.R.E. is?
I agree that this "chela" doesn't know what he's
talking about. It's obvious that he hasn't read
The Path of the Masters to make those comments.
Julian P. Johnson was merely detailing and
explaining the Radhasoami religion and this
perspective while making comparisons to other
religions and POVs throughout history. This was
a personal, mental, emotional, and spiritual creation
by Johnson while explaining (promoting) his religion
and its philosophy (PR).
Twitchell not only mimiced Johnson's style, but he
also took what Johnson had already researched and
created while altering it with a more "Western"
approach. On the surface this seems innocent
enough, but Twitchell was lazy and would steal the
research and wisdom of others and then merely do
a rewrite of their words while inserting his own
unique ego (personality) into the equation at times.
Other times PT would copy word for word the wisdom
and research of others without giving them their just
due. This Theft -without giving recognition to the
original source-(Soul) who researched, compiled,
or put into expression these concepts of SPIRIT is
refered to as Plagiarism. It is true that probably all
truth known to mankind has been expressed in one
way or another and by those Souls throughout history
who will remain unknown (Anonymous) or undiscovered.
Perhaps, in many cases, these Souls were us! Therefore,
Twit or Klump, or Eckankar, have no lock on Truth,
although, they may have copyrights to protect their
lesser and distorted version of truth! LOL!
Ironic, that a religion like ECKANKAR that was built
upon a foundation of lies and theft now protects itself
>Here's an old post from A.R.E. by Zs Chela (whoever
that pseudo might be??), I thought interesting for
discussion on PT's plagiarisms. Interesting how this
took place in advance to Ford Johnson's book
"Confessions of a God Seeker." Here's Zs Chela's
>From: Zs Chela - view profile
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2002 1:10 pm
> "Michael" <email addy deleted> wrote in messageMish:
> > I agree with you both... Still, the simple question
> of WHY Paul used other words and reformed them to his
> view is not really able to be answered. Doug's suggestion
> to me some time ago that as Paul had written the main
> books in question well prior to actually starting Eckankar,
> that these may have been trial runs. >
> Zs Chela wrote:
> You know, some time back Sri Harold made a comment that
> has been called the Inner Library explanation. It is almost
> universally dismissed here because no one has ever
> contemplated on what it might really mean. IMO, it does NOT
> mean that Paul went into contemplation and saw the same
> words on the inner as Julian Johnson. It just doesn't work that
> way. IMO, what this means is that Paul went into contemplation
> or in his dreams and received a spiritual message, an inner
> Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad experience. Julian Johnson also went into
> contemplation and in his spiritual journey had nearly the same
> experience, explored the same part of the inner Shariyat. Johnson
> wrote about his experience. Paul saw that Johnson's experience
> was essentially identical with his own, but with certain important
> differences in detail. So Paul rewrote Johnson making changes to
> emphasize the differences. Another possibility, that does not
> contradict the above, is that Paul and many of his followers at the
> time were very familiar with the Johnson book, so Paul rewrote
> Johnson in order to emphasize those differences. It is often as if
> Paul is saying to Johnson, "Yes, but this is how I see it." Paul
> changed specific and important words and this makes an important
> difference between the two.
> David Lane, in his zealousness to protect Charan Singh, misses this
> A Chela
It doesn't seem like Zs Chela has read Julian Johnson's book to be
able to make this sweeping opinion regarding Twitchell's writings
versus "The Path of the Masters." He's just guessing--doesn't provide
evidence of what was essentially important differences beyond
changing a name here and there. It would be more credible if
he would have pointed out the important changes! This is just fluff!
Zs Chela seems to be quite zealous himself in protecting the
eckankar org. : )
>Zs Chela was a 5th initiate (from what those who know his true identity
posted on A.R.E.) back in 2002. I wonder if this spin was expedited in
preparation of Ford Johnson's book being published the following year.
I seem to remember an H.I. I knew telling me that Ford was writing a
book--so was there information already circulating out there among the
H.I.s about "Confessions" prior to its release?
>I also read on A.R.E. that a couple of H.I. eckists who participate on that
site gave a workshop on cyberspace discussion use at the springtime
seminar in Washington D.C. in 2003--again, perhaps to counter the anti-
eckankar discussions on the 'net, already taking place and also for what
might be expected once eckists became aware of Ford Johnson's
"Confessions?" Just some thoughts about eckankar spins going way back
and how they are still spinning now. Anyone know anything about this?
> p.s. Hi, Kent! I'm enjoying your posts. I've read many others that you
> posted on A.R.E. Good insights and clarity.