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

Eck Apologists Side-Step Fundamental Truths

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    Hi, All! This is a post from Ford Johnson s Truth-Seeker BB, replying to Rich about Doug Marman. Ford points out in his comments that Marman s arguments are
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 8, 2007
      Hi, All!

      This is a post from Ford Johnson's Truth-Seeker BB,
      replying to Rich about Doug Marman. Ford points out
      in his comments that Marman's arguments are little more
      than magical side-steppingof fundamental truths--that
      eckankar apologists like Marman and Rich are basically
      debating to distract. Interesting enough, it seems that
      Doug Marman, even with his newer book now completed,
      is at cross-purposes with the damage control that Harold
      Klemp and the eck org have instituted with all the editing
      and rewriting that is on-going behind the scenes at

      Too bad that Ford's BBs are closed right now. It would be
      great if he would make available those posts that are
      focused on the lies and discrepancies of eckankar such as
      this post below. I didn't include Rich's comments because
      it seemed confusing as to who said what--Ford, Marman or
      Rich, so I am just posting Ford's reply. (There is a thread on
      A.R.E. that contains Rich's post, a repost from TS titled
      Response by Ford Johnson to Rich about Doug Marman,
      Jan 18, 2004)

      Ford Johnson's reply to Rich, Jan. 2004:
      Before addressing the four specific points that Doug raised,
      it is important to place this discussion in perspective or we
      are apt to miss the bigger picture. For more than twenty
      years (since David Lane's book), Eckankar apologists filled
      the Internet with debating points and excruciating detail
      about various factual issues surrounding the actions of Paul
      Twitchell. David, almost single-handed, had to defend the
      onslaught by those who were convinced, in those days, that
      he had to be wrong. Doug's book and the ensuing debate was
      quite fascinating and went on for some time. I responded to
      this in an earlier posting dealing with the question of why I
      did not address Doug's book in Confessions. There I explained
      that I did not consider it necessary or useful to retrace the
      steps in the debate between Doug and David over numerous
      issues concerning the life of Paul Twitchell.

      Rather, I was more concerned with fundamental issues of truth
      that went to the very heart of the veracity of Eckankar and its
      founders and leaders. Most of these issues were not the subjects
      of their debate. Ironically, many important issues surrounding
      Paul and his true nature were resolved in a series of concessions
      by Harold Klemp in his 1980 writings. This is when he adopted
      the euphemism "rascal" to explain Paul's checkered past. As we
      now know, Harold went as far down the road of truth that he
      could without destroying the road itself. But most of these
      points are akin to a mosquito bite on an elephant's back
      compared to the gravity of the tsunami of evidence which
      shows the duplicity, literary thievery and pathological
      prevarication displayed by the founder.

      So serious are these matters that the points that Doug raises
      as inaccuracies pale by comparison. Indeed, even if every
      factual point that Doug makes is absolutely correct, what
      difference does it make in the overall case. Paul Twitchell
      created a religion from his own imagination and deceived a
      following into believing that Eckankar was the oldest and
      highest teaching in the universe and that its leader, a
      Mahanta, was and is the only representative of God in spite of
      its first appearance on this planet in 1965. This is the heart of
      Eckankar doctrine and this is the lie. This is the big story, the big
      picture, the issue on which the truth seeker focuses to determine
      the course of his or her spiritual life.

      The apologist however, --I will gladly concede that neither you
      or Doug are paid apologist for Eckankar but you are apologists
      none the less--attempts to shift attention from these more
      transcendent issues, regarding fundamental truth, to the specifics
      of factual debating points in hopes that a factual clarification
      here or there can somehow magically transmute the fundamental
      lies and deception into something potentially believable (e.g.
      if facts 7,10, 22 and 37 of several thousand facts are in error, this
      "victory" somehow redeems the quest of the apologist.) This is the
      logic of Doug's arguments taken in their most favorable light.

      Now let's look at Doug's points:

      1) There is no evidence that Kirpal 'rebuffed' Paul.

      In the words of Harold Klemp in his own recanting of the
      experiences of Paul Twitchell he wrote:

      "Paul sent his manuscript of The Tiger's Fang to Kirpal Singh in
      India, which triggered a series of letters back and forth. It
      caused a very disagreeable situation when Paul wanted the
      manuscript back later. Paul had admired Kirpal Singh for a long
      time, but then they had this little falling out. Perhaps they worked
      it out later." These are Harold's words. I believe that this account
      would be sufficient to constitute the use of the phrase "Kirpal
      rebuffed Paul."

      2) Paul was teaching Eckankar for a few years while still
      being on friendly terms but not studying with Kirpal.

      Harold says that perhaps they worked it out. Unless you have
      some special evidence that neither Harold Klemp or David Lane
      revealed, Paul's words in his letter to Kirpal Singh would appear
      to speak for itself:

      From Confessions p. 92
      "In 1971, Paul completely disavowed his former Master in the
      harshest terms:
      I have never recognized you as a master, or that you give
      initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of
      spirituality. Your teachings are orthodox, and as a preacher you
      are not capable of assisting anyone spiritually.17

      Whether Paul patched up his relationship with Kirpal Singh
      between the period when Harold concedes he was not on good
      terms (re the Tigers Fang incident) and Paul's stronger disavowal
      of Kirpal in 1971 I do not know. If there was some reconciliation
      between these two events then it is an interesting side note but at
      best only that. I would be interested in seeing such evidence so
      that it can be added to the second edition of Confessions.
      However, such a clarification would only rise to the level of the
      bump on the elephants back if that.

      3) Paul's spiritual training and experience predate Kirpal

      I agree that Paul was a spiritual student for many years and
      undoubtedly studied many books and under other teachers.
      This point is not disputed in the book. While the story of his
      spiritual educations begins with Kirpal Singh it does not state
      or imply that it began there. This is the significant beginning
      regarding the modern history of Eckankar. Again it is a
      relatively unimportant factual point as relates to the basic issues
      presented in Confessions.

      4) Paul was involved in and writing for Scientology at the same
      time he was studying with Kirpal.

      I don't believe that Confession's makes any point regarding
      whether Paul did his writings with Scientology before, during or
      after his involvement with Kirpal. I will accept for arguments sake
      that you are correct. But again we are left with the screaming
      question: So What? The point is that he learned many of the
      controlling techniques that he would later employ in establishing
      Eckankar from Scientology because many of them can be found
      there. Also, many of Paul's writings were plagiarized from those
      copyrighted by Scientology.

      To the points that Doug raised, you added several of your own.

      1) I'll add that your conclusion that, "Singh's rejection was a
      turning point in Paul's life." does not take into consideration
      these facts which show that Paul was on this course even without
      his association with Kirpal."

      I am sure that you are correct. Paul's patterns of lying and
      exaggeration, from a very early age, show that he was well on
      his way before meeting Kirpal. These dishonest patterns
      expressed in a series of deceptive actions by Paul are what
      Harold called the training necessary to become the Mahanta.
      Harold makes these points in his book The Secret Teachings in
      which he uses a series of euphemisms to describe actions that
      are clearly dishonest if not reprehensible. That Paul was probably
      reading and studying spiritual matters during these years is not
      disputed nor does Confessions make that point. But again we are
      left with that haunting question: So what?

      2) Paul mentioned Eckankar and Sudar Singh in 1963 and
      Rebazar Tarzs in 1964. So your conclusion that: "Having
      disavowed his association with Kirpal Singh, Paul changed the
      historical record by substituting the names of invented masters
      such as Rebazar Tarzs." is not quite true since Paul was interacting
      with these characters at least 8 years earlier. The change was that
      he stopped mentioning Kirpal by then.

      I do not know the factual basis for your assertions and I do not
      believe that Confessions tries to make so fine a distinction
      regarding dates. But again conceding your point, it doesn't change
      the fundamental point that he altered his writing to change the
      names of people that he knew and studied for people that he made
      up to create his Vairagi Masters. That is the real point that he
      intentionally tried to deceive his readers into believing something
      that he knew was not true. It establishes further his tendency to lie
      even when it serves no reasonable purpose and could easily be
      discovered. These are the marks of the pathological liar.

      Finally, to your comment that you have not seen the fear in
      Eckankar, the fear does exist and we hear about it in E-mails daily.
      It is exhibited most commonly in the almost uniform tendency of
      Eckists to ignore that same elephant in the living room. They all see
      it but no one will talk about it because everyone knows that it is a
      risky thing to do. If you do not see this then a certain naivety is being
      exhibited for there is real fear of being ostracized or worse if the
      silence (the kamit) is broken.

      I have addressed your points as well as Doug's. Having spent the
      time to do so, I ask you how much further does this exercise in
      factual trivia take us in the search for truth? It is easy to see how
      such trivial points can reinforce the beliefs of those who want to
      believe –even though this is a stretch. But for the truth seeker, the
      points are so trivial as to make one wonder why they were ever
      raised. But the reasons have been pointed out and I am sure are
      clear to those who seek truth over apologetics.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.