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

plagiarism and Paul

Expand Messages
  • paulji_teen
    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
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 2 11:27 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 from 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 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
    • prometheus_973
      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
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 2 4:01 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 from 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
        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
      • prometheus_973
        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,
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 3 10:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          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 started his 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 from 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
          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
        • prometheus_973
          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
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 4 10:21 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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 grow 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

            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
            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 started his 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 from 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
            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
          • etznab@aol.com
            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).
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 4 4:38 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              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

               






              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
            • prometheus_973
              Hello Leanne and All, Well, you re close. That s Sunasu Vitamins. I m not sure if Gail sold this company off or still has some involvement with it. The
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 5 11:51 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Leanne and All,
                Well, you're close. That's Sunasu Vitamins.
                I'm not sure if Gail sold this company
                off or still has some involvement with
                it. The products now seem to be sold
                by individual distributors (multi-level
                marketing) like Amway or Shaklee.

                BTW- I had another thought about the
                Mahanta ploy. It did give people the
                illusion that they were getting the "highest"
                and "best" Master, thus, the highest and
                best (and most "direct") path to God.

                After all, people don't want the "second"
                or "third" best Master or religious "path"
                do they? People want the very best
                and they want to feel special, noticed,
                and important. And those increases in
                rank (initiation level) is "proof" of one's
                spiritual growth. It's called a yardstick.
                LOL! But, Klemp once said that there
                were some new (lower) initiates coming
                in to Eckankar that were "higher" in
                consciousness than some current H.I.s.
                Remember that statement? Thus, HK
                invalidated the Higher Initiations with
                this statement! When H.I.s aren't following
                the Four Zoas or Spiritual Laws why
                do they still get promoted? It's because
                there is No "inner" communication...
                and Klemp has No Powers to enforce
                anything, unless, one allows HK into
                their thoughts... the promises of religion,
                in general and specifically with Eckankar,
                is a farce. This is why the use of the
                "imagination" is promoted over and
                over again. This is how the Illusions
                (Maya) of the KAL work. And, HUing
                doesn't help either if one wants to
                accept Graham's account.

                Thus, imagination and illusion go
                hand-in-hand, especially, when
                directed by another who demands
                payment, as Klemp does, with a
                required/requested annual membership
                donation fee.

                Thus, HK finally had to write a H.I.
                Handbook (it was very overdue) to tell
                his H.I.s how to act (behave) around
                other Eckists, and in public. Basically,
                Klemp tells his H.I.s can do what they
                want behind closed doors, but H.I.s are
                to put on their "EK masks" when at ECK
                events or when under public scrutiny.

                See it's all about the PR (public relations)
                image then and now! Eckankar is a business.
                And, Paul certainly had the experience
                and knowledge on how to sell and promote
                himself and an image! Just look at PT's first
                or biggest attempt, early on, at self-promotion
                at the age of 27, in 1935, by trying to get
                into "Who's Who in Kentucky." He was a liar
                then and continued to lie throughout his life.
                Klemp imitated Twit by "writing" dozens of
                simple-minded, one dimensional books with
                pseudo "awards" (by local/fellow publishers)
                and paying a fee to get into the "International
                Who's Who of Intellectuals" (ninth edition).

                Think about people you've met in the
                past who were untrustworthy. What are
                they like today? Have they changed for
                the better? Do you trust them completely?
                Then again, some people remain gullible
                and make bad judgments throughout their
                lives. They trust anyone and everyone
                by giving them even more than the benefit
                of the doubt. In theory that's fine, but it
                can come back to bite you too! Common
                sense and the changing times should be
                considered too. These overly trusting
                people/Eckists will never be able to, nor
                would they want to, see the inconvenient
                Truth that their religion is a lie or that it
                was imported and altered from the lies
                of other religions (Sant Mat, etc.).

                No RESA hierarchy, "living (EK) master,"
                or "Mahanta" is needed for Soul to commune
                with the Holy Spirit. Spiritual growth is
                natural for all Souls and shouldn't be seen
                as a race to the end.

                Besides, who says that those Eckankar
                Initiations are valid, or are of any use?
                It's imaginary and, yes, self-indulgent!
                Look closely at those H.I.s who hold those
                "higher" ones, or those newer ones who
                wear their Cleric pins so proudly. Look
                through and beyond their public masks.
                Do they have anything really meaningful
                to say, or torelate to beyond that of an
                EK brochure? It's all so redundant!

                How do H.I.s behave outside of EK meetings
                and events? Do they hideout like Klemp
                because they can't interact with others
                without showing their negative (lower)
                side. Klemp has two faces, but it is not
                that of the outer and inner master. It
                is the two faces of the KAL.

                On another, similar, note -Is being
                a good public speaker or workshop
                leader, or a writer (of sorts) the
                qualifications for being a H.I.? If so,
                then take a look at all of those non-
                Eckists and former H.I.s. See, this
                is proof that there's more beyond
                the narrow focus that Eckankar provides.

                Anyway, my thanks to Klemp, over on
                Eckankar.org, for pointing out the facts
                about PT's early days (up to and including
                meeting Rebazar) in regard to his unethical
                and deceptive practices.

                Prometheus


                le_anne wrote:

                sununu vitamins?


                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 grow 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

                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
                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 started his 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 from 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
                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
              • prometheus_973
                Hello Etznab and All, I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL and found a lot of information. The following is one source that showed up on this search:
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 5 12:21 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Etznab and All,
                  I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
                  and found a lot of information. The following
                  is one source that showed up on this search:


                  Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,
                  former President of Eckankar, one-time
                  follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's
                  personal doctor when the Eck leader died
                  in 1971:

                  Date: June 19, 1980

                  My wife and I opened the first Eck class
                  in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul
                  [Twitchell] many times and was the main
                  speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.
                  Paul was a sincere student in the beginning
                  and I considered him honest.

                  Problems between him and his wife Gail led
                  him to believe she was going to leave him
                  and he desperately wanted to keep her.

                  So when she demanded more money and
                  better living, he started to write things and
                  copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]
                  borrowed my books on Radha Soami and
                  copied a large share from them.

                  I helped him write the Herb book and went
                  to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,
                  so basically much of the material is good
                  because it is copied.

                  I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what
                  he had done and his answer was "since the
                  author the book said it better than I could
                  I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave
                  anyone credit as to where he got it.

                  As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,
                  my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.
                  I don't think that a Master would divorce
                  his wife and seek many other female companions.

                  Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.


                  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
                • etznab@aol.com
                  That was the source I was thinking of. Thanks for posting it. The only problem I have with all of the copying and not giving credit is that the credit (it
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 5 6:34 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That was the source I was thinking of.
                    Thanks for posting it.

                    The only problem I have with all of the
                    copying and not giving credit is that the
                    credit (it seems to me) was given - or is
                    implied to be given - to Eck Masters and
                    Eckankar (but is that where it all actually
                    came from?)..

                    There is some "divide" it seems to me
                    between the sources of information and
                    the history of where it "comes from" acc-
                    ording to "Eckankar".

                    Although I can kinda see where such
                    practices are common to organized re-
                    ligion - and some New Age groups which
                    desire to promote "Masters" unique to
                    each their own path - sometimes I think
                    that "fabricated" and "fictional" history
                    (mythology and legend, etc.) can often
                    detract from the actual truth. Even to the
                    point of preventing people from learning
                    the history and origin of certain teachings.

                    It doesn't always matter, perhaps, the
                    place where information comes from, but
                    taken to the extreme pseudo "man-made"
                    history can make a real mess of people's
                    lives! Especially when they see the myth
                    and the truth side by side and organized
                    religion appears to want "myth" to replace
                    the literal truth.

                    What does a person do? Search history
                    for the truth? or forget about that and just
                    swallow the ____ pill?

                    Etznab


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                    To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                    Se
                    nt: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 2:21 pm
                    Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] EK 8th Initiate Dr. Bluth and the
                    Mahanta - Paul Twitchell

                     






                    Hello Etznab and All,

                    I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                    and found a lot of information. The following

                    is one source that showed up on this search:



                    Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                    former President of Eckankar, one-time

                    follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                    personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                    in 1971:



                    Date: June 19, 1980



                    My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                    in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                    [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                    speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                    Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                    and I considered him honest.



                    Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                    him to believe she was going to leave him

                    and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                    So when she demanded more money and

                    better living, he started to write things and

                    copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                    borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                    copied a large share from them.



                    I helped him write the Herb book and went

                    to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                    so basically much of the material is good

                    because it is copied.



                    I confronted him [Paul Twitch
                    ell] with what

                    he had done and his answer was "since the

                    author the book said it better than I could

                    I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave

                    anyone credit as to where he got it.



                    As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

                    my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.

                    I don't think that a Master would divorce

                    his wife and seek many other female companions.



                    Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.



                    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. W
                    hat I mean is, the two

                    > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.

                    >

                    > Etznab
                  • prometheus_973
                    Hello All, Here s more that I found after I GOOGLED DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL. THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS Translation and Successorship John Paul Twitchell
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 5 7:12 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello All,
                      Here's more that I found after I GOOGLED
                      DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL.


                      THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS

                      Translation and Successorship


                      John Paul Twitchell died on September 17, 1971,
                      of arteriosclerotic heart disease. He "translated"
                      (Eck terminology for death) at approximately
                      12:50 a.m., in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he was
                      scheduled to give a lecture on Eckankar.

                      [Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,
                      Ohio Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics.]

                      As with his birth, several stories have
                      cropped up concerning Twitchell's unexpected
                      death (translation). A few Eckists, including
                      Jim Peebles, believed that he was poisoned
                      to death; some state it was in Spain, others
                      claim in Czechoslovakia. No one seems quite
                      sure. At the time of his death, Dr. Louis Bluth,
                      one-time President of Eckankar, reported seeing
                      Twitchell's soul carried out in a celestial cloud
                      of light. Yet, he later changed his story, claiming
                      instead that Twitchell had disobeyed the orders
                      of the Vairagi Masters and was carried away in
                      chains. Whichever story one believes--even if
                      one belongs to Eckankar--the fact remains that
                      an autopsy was performed and the coroner's findings
                      were that Twitchell died of a heart attack.
                      [Ibid.]


                      The Controversial "Five Year Plan"


                      When Twitchell first took over as the
                      "Living Eck Master" in 1965, he stated at
                      the very outset that he had been given a
                      "five-year" mission, and that after those
                      five years a new master would be appointed.
                      [Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht, op. cit.,
                      page 19.]

                      Yet when 1970 came around (five years
                      after his proposed statement), Twitchell told
                      his followers at the Fourth World-Wide Eckankar
                      Seminar that he had been given a five-year
                      extension by the Highest Lord, the Sugmad,
                      because the second Mahanta had failed his
                      preliminary testing. Therefore, he would continue
                      as the Mahanta until the third one was ready.
                      [Ibid.]

                      Nichols and Albrecht in their paper,
                      "Eckankar: The Ancient Science of Deception,"
                      have researched extensively Twitchell's self-
                      proposed "five-year plan." They consider it
                      to be a crucial point of controversy within
                      Eckankar. Below is the essence of their study.

                      By January 1971, the dispute within Eckankar
                      had reached such proportions, Twitchell had
                      to devote his entire letter of that month to
                      quelling the disturbance:

                      "There is a lot of idle chatter going on by
                      some chelas in Eck who make the unusual
                      claims that they are going to be the next
                      Mahanta, the Living Eck Master. But whatever
                      you hear about this can be taken with a grain
                      of salt, as the old expression goes it simply
                      isn't true."

                      Dr. Bluth attributes this change of plan
                      to Paul's attachment to Gail. . . Paul told
                      Bluth that he was training a child somewhere
                      on the West Coast to be the next Mahanta.
                      A lot of members of Eck began leaving the
                      fold at this time sensing a betrayal. Paul
                      did not quell the disturbance.

                      Even in May 1971, the storm was still raging.
                      C. Lydon Harrell, Jr., Twitchell's attorney, signed
                      a letter dated May 1, 1971, on his letterhead,
                      addressed to the chelas, that once again states
                      that the next Mahanta is a child and won't be
                      ready for fifteen years.

                      Paul Twitchell never lived to carry out his five-year
                      extension that had been granted to him by the Order
                      of Vairagi, the ascended Eck Masters. He never lived
                      to pass the rod of power to another Mahanta, or even
                      an interim Master. [Ibid., pages 20-21.]

                      The Advent of Darwin Gross

                      "The next Mahanta is about fifteen years away.
                      He is now in training but where he is nobody
                      knows and won't know for a long time yet."
                      [--Paul Twitchell (January 1971)]
                      [Ibid., page 20.]

                      Sri Darwin Gross, Portland, Oregon Eck Mahadis,
                      and professional engineer was announced at
                      the Fifth World-Wide Seminar of Eckankar, to
                      be the new living Eck Master.
                      [Eckankar News Release (October 1971)]

                      The Eckankar News Release reads:

                      "The announcement was made before
                      an assembly of over a thousand followers
                      at the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross
                      known in spiritual circles as Dap Ren succeeds
                      Paul Twitchell, author 30 books, master and
                      founder of the present, world-wide Eckankar
                      movement who died (translated) in Cincinnati
                      Sept. 17, 1971."

                      It came as a surprise and a shock to many
                      Eckists when Paul Twitchell died suddenly
                      on September 17, 1971. Many of Twitchell's
                      followers had expected their master to live
                      at least another five (if not fifteen) years.
                      It came as a bigger surprise and shock to
                      some of those same Eckists when Darwin
                      Gross was proclaimed the new "Living Eck
                      Master" a month after Twitchell's demise.
                      Shortly thereafter, several esteemed Eckists,
                      including Dr. Bluth (President of Eckankar
                      and Paul's personal doctor) and Edward Pecen
                      (Paul's personal bodyguard and confidante),
                      left Eckankar disclaiming Darwin Gross and
                      Gail Atkinson. [Edward Pecen, personal interview
                      with the author, November 1977.]

                      Part of the reason behind the astonishment
                      of many Eckists over the advent of Darwin Gross
                      was because he had been in Eckankar only since
                      1969. Nichols and Albrecht retell the controversy:

                      "According to Bluth, Gross was flown to Las Vegas. . .
                      from Portland, Oregon, where Gross was immediately
                      granted a fifth initiation and briefed extensively for
                      days so that he could pass the scrutiny of the experts.
                      None of the experts were fooled, and there was a fairly
                      large exodus from the movement at the time, including
                      Dr. Bluth and Dr. Wiggelsworth."

                      "Gail had claimed to have had a vision in the middle
                      of the night where Paul had come to her in Nuri Sarup
                      body and told her that Darwin Gross was to be his
                      successor. There was no more mention of the child
                      that Twitchell supposedly had been training."

                      [Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht, op. cit., pages
                      23-24.] Jim Peebles makes a similar observation:

                      "Here one should remember that Paul
                      left no word as to who his successor should
                      be. . . As it was, Darwin Gross first became
                      interested in Eckankar in 1969, thus he was
                      an Eck Chela for less than a complete two
                      years at the time he was declared to be the
                      new living Eck Master (i.e., Paul's successor)."
                      [Jim Peebles, op. cit., page 12]


                      Darwin Gross was revealed as the new
                      "Living Eck Master" in Las Vegas, when
                      Gail Atkinson Twitchell, Paul's widow,
                      walked over to Darwin and presented him
                      with a blue carnation. Shortly thereafter,
                      to the bewilderment of a number of Eckists,
                      Gail and Darwin were married. However,
                      their marriage was short-lived. In early 1978,
                      Darwin sent a personal letter to a every Eck
                      chela in the world informing them that he
                      and Gail were getting divorced. A couple of
                      years later, Darwin got remarried, but it lasted
                      only a few months and he got the marriage
                      annulled. The ramifications of Darwin's divorce,
                      remarriage, and annulment on the membership
                      in Eckankar in the 1970's is difficult to ascertain.
                      Yet, it can be presumed by the continued growth
                      of Eckankar in the United States that its ultimate
                      impact, like Darwin and Gail's marriage, was
                      nominal.

                      Gail Atkinson, according to the personal
                      letter sent to all Eckists, is still a member
                      of Eckankar and will continue to support the
                      activities of the Eck Master and the group.

                      Post-Twitchellian Eckankar

                      I have used the term "post-Twitchellian"
                      because I think it best emphasizes the crucial
                      importance of Paul Twitchell on Eckankar.

                      The growth of Eckankar, since of the death
                      of its founder, Paul Twitchell, and the advent
                      of Darwin Gross, has been remarkable. Although
                      Darwin has only authored a few books (including
                      the small booklet, Eckankar: A Way of Life ), as
                      compared to Twitchell's enormous output (over
                      sixty texts), Eckankar has increased its membership
                      almost triple.

                      The exact figures have not, as of yet,
                      been released by Eckankar. But in 1970
                      the membership was reported not to exceed
                      twenty-thousand. In 1991 it is estimated
                      that the number is somewhere between
                      forty-thousand and sixty-thousand core
                      members.

                      Since Darwin's acceptance of the mantleship,
                      Eckankar established its Headquarters in Menlo
                      Park--an impressive million dollar building.
                      [Now under the leadership of Harold Klemp,
                      the central headquarters is in Minneapolis,
                      Minnesota.] Yet the most enterprising of Darwin's
                      projects was to build a spiritual center in Sedona,
                      Arizona. The project, however, had to be abandoned
                      due to lack of finances and a devastating lawsuit
                      taken against Eckankar over property rights in
                      the Sedona area.

                      [See Sedona's Red Rock News (November 5,
                      1980) for more on the lawsuit taken over
                      Eckankar's land holdings.]

                      The Third Living Eck Master: Harold Klemp

                      In October of 1981, Darwin Gross passed
                      on the mantleship of Eckankar to Harold
                      Klemp, a long-standing Eckist. The event
                      took place in Los Angeles, California, at the
                      World-Wide Seminar. For many members,
                      the announcement came as an abrupt transition.
                      Apparently, to ease in the appointment of
                      Harold Klemp, Darwin Gross agreed to work
                      at the International Office in Menlo Park in
                      an advisory capacity. But all did not go well
                      and in 1983 a severe break occurred between
                      Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp, which led
                      to Gross' removal and subsequent excommunication
                      from the fold.

                      [See Part Five for a detailed examination
                      of this most unusual chapter in Eckankar's
                      history.]

                      Although we have examined briefly Paul
                      Twitchell's life and work up to to his death
                      and the successorship of Darwin Gross in
                      Eckankar, we have not, as of yet, studied
                      the most crucial and controversial aspect
                      of Eckankar: namely, the untold story of
                      Paul Twitchell. The first two parts have
                      served as an introduction, for what follows
                      is the most intriguing, yet the most disputed,
                      aspect of Twitchell's life and work.

                      NOTES
                      1. Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,
                      Ohio Department of Health, Division of Vital
                      Statistics.

                      2. Ibid.

                      3. Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht,
                      op. cit., page 19.

                      4. Ibid.

                      5. Ibid., pages 20-21.

                      6. Ibid., page 20.

                      7. The Eckankar News Release reads: "The
                      announcement was made before an assembly
                      of over a thousand followers at the Flamingo
                      Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross known in spiritual
                      circles as Dap Ren succeeds Paul Twitchell,
                      author of 30 books, master and founder of
                      the present, world-wide Eckankar movement
                      who died (translated) in Cincinnati Sept. 17, 1971."

                      8. Edward Pecen, personal interview with the
                      author, November 1977.

                      9. Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht, op. cit.,
                      pages 23-24.

                      10. Jim Peebles, op. cit., page 12.

                      11. Gail Atkinson, according to the personal letter
                      sent to all Eckists, is still a member of Eckankar
                      and will continue to support the activities of the
                      Eck Master and the group.

                      12. I have used the term "post-Twitchellian" because
                      I think it best emphasizes the crucial importance
                      of Paul Twitchell on Eckankar.

                      13. The exact figures have not, as of yet, been
                      released by Eckankar. But in 1970 the membership
                      was reported not to exceed twenty-thousand. In
                      the early 1990's it is estimated that the number
                      is anywhere between twenty and forty thousand
                      core members.

                      14. See Sedona's Red Rock News (November 5,
                      1980) for more on the lawsuit taken over Eckankar's
                      land holdings.




                      ******************************************
                      Paul Twitchell (born John Paul Twitchell)
                      (October 22, 1908(?) - September 17, 1971)
                      was an American spiritual writer, author
                      and founder of the group known as Eckankar.
                      He is accepted by the members of that group
                      as the Mahanta, or Living ECK Master of his
                      time. He directed the development of the
                      group through to the time of his death.
                      His spiritual name is believed by Eckists
                      (students of Eckankar) to be Peddar Zaskq.


                      Birth and early life

                      Much of Twitchell's life is shrouded in controversy
                      and uncertainty. His birth date has been disputed;
                      his widow Gail believed he was born in 1922, as
                      evident by his death certificate, but Twitchell himself
                      once claimed his birth year was 1912. Author Ford
                      Johnson, on the other hand, has sided with 1909,
                      based on census information.[1] The 1910 Census
                      indicates that Twitchell was six months old in April
                      1910. Twitchell's birth certificate (registered in 1941)
                      says that he was born 22 October 1912.[2] The young
                      Paul was probably born in Paducah, Kentucky, although
                      this, too, has been disputed.[citation needed]

                      In his later life, Twitchell attended Murray State
                      College and Western Kentucky University in the
                      1930s but never graduated from either.[3] He
                      married for the first time in 1942.[4] He served
                      in the United States Navy during World War II,
                      and became a correspondent for Our Navy after
                      the war. He later went on to become a freelance
                      journalist. [5]

                      He also investigated a number of spiritual movements.
                      In 1950, he joined Swami Premananda's Self-Realization
                      Church of Absolute Monism, an offshoot of Paramahamsa
                      Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship. He lived on
                      the grounds of the church, and edited the church's
                      periodical, The Mystic Cross. He was asked to leave
                      the church in 1955, the same year that he broke up
                      with his first wife.

                      Later that same year, he was initiated into Kirpal
                      Singh into surat shabd yoga. He also became involved
                      in the Church of Scientology, becoming a member
                      of the Church's staff and one of the first Scientologists
                      to achieve the status of clear. [5]

                      In Seattle, he met Gail Atkinson. Twitchell later introduced
                      the woman to Kirpal Singh and later married her. They
                      moved to San Francisco in 1964, where Twitchell studied
                      surat shabd yoga without the assistance of Kirpal Singh.
                      During the 1960s he lived in California, with his second
                      wife, Gail Atkinson. He pursued a spiritual education
                      under the inspiration of Kirpal Singh, but after a postal
                      correspondence, during which Kirpal Singh critiqued
                      Twitchell's work, Twitchell rejected his teachings. [6]
                      Twitchell then went on to study surat shabd yoga
                      independent of Kirpal Singh. [5]


                      Role in Eckankar

                      Some people believe it was actually Gail's idea that
                      Twitchell adapt some of his spiritual education into
                      a new religion, Eckankar.[7] (Gail broke from the religion
                      in the early 1980s, publicly denouncing Eckankar as
                      an invention, although Twitchell had claimed the religion
                      was ancient).[8] While at first Twitchell allegedly claimed
                      his teachings were new, he eventually referred to them
                      as an ancient science that predated all other major religious
                      belief systems.[9] Indeed, in his book Eckankar: The Key
                      to Secret Worlds, Twitchell claimed he received aid in
                      uncovering Eckankar from the spirit of a predecessor
                      ECK master, Rebazar Tarzs. After the religion was founded
                      or uncovered, Twitchell then turned to writing for magazines.
                      In that position he gave out spiritual advice, claiming
                      to communicate with God about the problems of those
                      who wrote to him. He also attempted prophecy, predicting
                      that the Vietnam War would end in 1968 and that Lyndon
                      Johnson would be elected US President for a second time.
                      Many of his answers were concluded with the words
                      "I HAVE SPOKEN!"[10]


                      Death

                      Twitchell died of a heart attack in late 1971. His death,
                      like his life, was not free of controversy. Some Eckists,
                      including the prominent member Louis Bluth, believed
                      his death was necessary; it was claimed Twitchell had
                      defied the ECK masters of the past. Additionally, many
                      Eckists came to question Twitchell's honesty after his
                      death, since he had predicted that he would continue
                      to lead the faith for another decade and a half. The
                      death was also problematic because Twitchell did not
                      have a chance to name his successor. His widow Gail
                      eventually selected Darwin Gross whom she later married.
                      According to Gail, Gross was indeed Paul Twitchell's
                      choice, as he had visited her in a dream to give his
                      endorsement.[11]

                      This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-
                      contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been
                      reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)


                      prometheus wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello Etznab and All,
                      > I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
                      > and found a lot of information. The following
                      > is one source that showed up on this search:
                      >
                      >
                      > Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,
                      > former President of Eckankar, one-time
                      > follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's
                      > personal doctor when the Eck leader died
                      > in 1971:
                      >
                      > Date: June 19, 1980
                      >
                      > My wife and I opened the first Eck class
                      > in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul
                      > [Twitchell] many times and was the main
                      > speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.
                      > Paul was a sincere student in the beginning
                      > and I considered him honest.
                      >
                      > Problems between him and his wife Gail led
                      > him to believe she was going to leave him
                      > and he desperately wanted to keep her.
                      >
                      > So when she demanded more money and
                      > better living, he started to write things and
                      > copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]
                      > borrowed my books on Radha Soami and
                      > copied a large share from them.
                      >
                      > I helped him write the Herb book and went
                      > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,
                      > so basically much of the material is good
                      > because it is copied.
                      >
                      > I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what
                      > he had done and his answer was "since the
                      > author the book said it better than I could
                      > I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave
                      > anyone credit as to where he got it.
                      >
                      > As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,
                      > my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.
                      > I don't think that a Master would divorce
                      > his wife and seek many other female companions.
                      >
                      > Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                      >
                      >
                      > 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_973
                      Hello Etznab and All, I was thinking about this myself and about how Klemp and company use the excuse that it all came/comes from the ECK. Words are words and
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 5 11:15 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Etznab and All,
                        I was thinking about this myself and
                        about how Klemp and company use
                        the excuse that it all came/comes
                        from the ECK. Words are words and
                        they are there for everyone to use.
                        And, every invention was already
                        created (and simply needs to be
                        manifested) and is recorded in the
                        Astral Library.

                        However, what becomes of creativity
                        if this is true? Is creativity simply
                        traveling to the Astral Library and
                        reading about an invention and then
                        remembering the dream experience
                        after one awakes?

                        I saw the movie "Flash of Genius"
                        and the guy had to defend his ability
                        to create. It was all about how he
                        arranged his components (resistors,
                        capacitors, diodes, etc.) to create
                        the circuits that made his invention
                        work (the intermittent windshield wiper).

                        Writers do the same with their words.
                        There are thousands of words in the
                        dictionary but it's the arrangement
                        of these words that comprise thoughts
                        and great books like "A Tale of Two Cities."
                        This is the creative flow which is unique
                        to all Souls.

                        However, Twitchell stole the creative
                        writing style of those he plagiarized,
                        especially, when he used their exact
                        wording. 'Thou Shall Not Steal' meant
                        nothing to Twitchell because he had
                        been doing it for years. And to him
                        the ends justified the means.

                        Yes, this theft of creativity is what
                        Klemp has turned a blind eye to.
                        But, what does one expect from
                        a person who uses other peoples'
                        stories in order to "write" his books
                        and to give his talks. If it wasn't for
                        these other peoples' stories HK's
                        talks and books would be even more
                        boring. He'd stumble around quoting
                        Mark Twain or Rumi, or retell a Bible
                        story.

                        Where is Klemp's creativity? If he can't
                        write anything worthy of a best seller
                        he shouldn't claim he's the highest
                        consciousness on the planet (the 14th
                        Plane of Con. Mahanta), and he shouldn't
                        claim to be an international intellectual!
                        Is it all imaginary with Klemp? Either that
                        or it's another lie! I'm not imagining it
                        (like Eckists) so it must be a lie!

                        Prometheus


                        etznab wrote:

                        That was the source I was thinking of.
                        Thanks for posting it.

                        The only problem I have with all of the
                        copying and not giving credit is that the
                        credit (it seems to me) was given - or is
                        implied to be given - to Eck Masters and
                        Eckankar (but is that where it all actually
                        came from?)..

                        There is some "divide" it seems to me
                        between the sources of information and
                        the history of where it "comes from" acc-
                        ording to "Eckankar".

                        Although I can kinda see where such
                        practices are common to organized re-
                        ligion - and some New Age groups which
                        desire to promote "Masters" unique to
                        each their own path - sometimes I think
                        that "fabricated" and "fictional" history
                        (mythology and legend, etc.) can often
                        detract from the actual truth. Even to the
                        point of preventing people from learning
                        the history and origin of certain teachings.

                        It doesn't always matter, perhaps, the
                        place where information comes from, but
                        taken to the extreme pseudo "man-made"
                        history can make a real mess of people's
                        lives! Especially when they see the myth
                        and the truth side by side and organized
                        religion appears to want "myth" to replace
                        the literal truth.

                        What does a person do? Search history
                        for the truth? or forget about that and just
                        swallow the ____ pill?

                        Etznab


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                        To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                        Se
                        nt: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 2:21 pm
                        Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] EK 8th Initiate Dr. Bluth and the
                        Mahanta - Paul Twitchell

                        Â






                        Hello Etznab and All,

                        I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                        and found a lot of information. The following

                        is one source that showed up on this search:



                        Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                        former President of Eckankar, one-time

                        follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                        personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                        in 1971:



                        Date: June 19, 1980



                        My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                        in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                        [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                        speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                        Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                        and I considered him honest.



                        Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                        him to believe she was going to leave him

                        and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                        So when she demanded more money and

                        better living, he started to write things and

                        copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                        borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                        copied a large share from them.



                        I helped him write the Herb book and went

                        to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                        so basically much of the material is good

                        because it is copied.



                        I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                        he had done and his answer was "since the

                        author the book said it better than I could

                        I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave

                        anyone credit as to where he got it.



                        As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

                        my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.

                        I don't think that a Master would divorce

                        his wife and seek many other female companions.



                        Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                      • paulji_teen
                        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
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 6 1:49 AM
                        • 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
                          >
                        • prometheus_973
                          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
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 6 8:51 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.


                            Prometheus


                            paulji_teen wrote:

                            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

                            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
                            >
                          • etznab@aol.com
                            Do you have a link to online version of The Path of the Masters? I thought there was one posted here recently, but I can t seem to find where I saved it in my
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 6 3:27 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Do you have a link to online version of The
                              Path of the Masters? I thought there was one
                              posted here recently, but I can't seem to find
                              where I saved it in my favorites folder.

                              I wanted to give a link for the A.R.E. post
                              (Who?, or What? is Rebazar Tarzs Really?)
                              that I just sent in.

                              http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_thread/thread/a153f2adbf77d329?hl=en#

                              I'm hoping nobody from A.R.E. jumps on
                              me for bringing up that topic, because I was
                              sincere about the questions. It's something
                              I really want to know about once and for all.
                              What is Eckankar's current position on Eck
                              Master Rebazar Tarzs?

                              Etznab



                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                              To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 9:12 pm
                              Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Dr. Bluth, Gail and the Mahanta -
                              Paul Twitchell

                               






                              Hello All,

                              Here's more that I found after I GOOGLED

                              DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL.



                              THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS



                              Translation and Successorship



                              John Paul Twitchell died on September 17, 1971,

                              of arteriosclerotic heart disease. He "translated"

                              (Eck terminology for death) at approximately

                              12:50 a.m., in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he was

                              scheduled to give a lecture on Eckankar.



                              [Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,

                              Ohio Department of Health,
                              Division of Vital Statistics.]



                              As with his birth, several stories have

                              cropped up concerning Twitchell's unexpected

                              death (translation). A few Eckists, including

                              Jim Peebles, believed that he was poisoned

                              to death; some state it was in Spain, others

                              claim in Czechoslovakia. No one seems quite

                              sure. At the time of his death, Dr. Louis Bluth,

                              one-time President of Eckankar, reported seeing

                              Twitchell's soul carried out in a celestial cloud

                              of light. Yet, he later changed his story, claiming

                              instead that Twitchell had disobeyed the orders

                              of the Vairagi Masters and was carried away in

                              chains. Whichever story one believes--even if

                              one belongs to Eckankar--the fact remains that

                              an autopsy was performed and the coroner's findings

                              were that Twitchell died of a heart attack.

                              [Ibid.]



                              The Controversial "Five Year Plan"



                              When Twitchell first took over as the

                              "Living Eck Master" in 1965, he stated at

                              the very outset that he had been given a

                              "five-year" mission, and that after those

                              five years a new master would be appointed.

                              [Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht, op. cit.,

                              page 19.]



                              Yet when 1970 came around (five years

                              after his proposed statement), Twitchell told

                              his followers at the Fourth World-Wide Eckankar

                              Seminar that he had been given a five-year

                              extension by the Highest Lord, the Sugmad,



                              because the second Mahanta had failed his

                              preliminary testing. Therefore, he would continue

                              as the Mahanta until the third one was ready.

                              [Ibid.]



                              Nichols and Albrecht in their paper,

                              "Eckankar: The Ancient Science of Deception,"

                              have researched extensively Twitchell's self-

                              proposed "five-year plan." They consider it

                              to be a crucial point of controversy within

                              Eckankar. Below is the essence of their study.



                              By January 1971, the dispute within Eckankar

                              had reached such proportions, Twitchell had

                              to devote his entire letter of that month to

                              quelling the disturbance:



                              "There is a lot of idle chatter going on by

                              some chelas in Eck who make the unusual

                              claims that they are going to be the next

                              Mahanta, the Living Eck Master. But whatever

                              you hear about this can be taken with a grain

                              of salt, as the old expression goes it simply

                              isn't true."



                              Dr. Bluth attributes this change of plan

                              to Paul's attachment to Gail. . . Paul told

                              Bluth that he was training a child somewhere

                              on the West Coast to be the next Mahanta.

                              A lot of members of Eck began leaving the

                              fold at this time sensing a betrayal. Paul

                              did not quell the disturbance.



                              Even in May 1971, the storm was still raging.

                              C. Lydon Harrell, Jr., Twitchell's attorney, signed

                              a letter dated May 1, 1971, on his lette
                              rhead,

                              addressed to the chelas, that once again states

                              that the next Mahanta is a child and won't be

                              ready for fifteen years.



                              Paul Twitchell never lived to carry out his five-year

                              extension that had been granted to him by the Order

                              of Vairagi, the ascended Eck Masters. He never lived

                              to pass the rod of power to another Mahanta, or even

                              an interim Master. [Ibid., pages 20-21.]



                              The Advent of Darwin Gross



                              "The next Mahanta is about fifteen years away.

                              He is now in training but where he is nobody

                              knows and won't know for a long time yet."

                              [--Paul Twitchell (January 1971)]

                              [Ibid., page 20.]



                              Sri Darwin Gross, Portland, Oregon Eck Mahadis,

                              and professional engineer was announced at

                              the Fifth World-Wide Seminar of Eckankar, to

                              be the new living Eck Master.

                              [Eckankar News Release (October 1971)]



                              The Eckankar News Release reads:



                              "The announcement was made before

                              an assembly of over a thousand followers

                              at the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross

                              known in spiritual circles as Dap Ren succeeds

                              Paul Twitchell, author 30 books, master and

                              founder of the present, world-wide Eckankar

                              movement who died (translated) in Cincinnati

                              Sept. 17, 1971."



                              It came as a surprise and a shock to many

                              Eckists when Paul Twitchell died suddenly

                              on September 17, 1971. Many=2
                              0of Twitchell's

                              followers had expected their master to live

                              at least another five (if not fifteen) years.

                              It came as a bigger surprise and shock to

                              some of those same Eckists when Darwin

                              Gross was proclaimed the new "Living Eck

                              Master" a month after Twitchell's demise.

                              Shortly thereafter, several esteemed Eckists,

                              including Dr. Bluth (President of Eckankar

                              and Paul's personal doctor) and Edward Pecen

                              (Paul's personal bodyguard and confidante),

                              left Eckankar disclaiming Darwin Gross and

                              Gail Atkinson. [Edward Pecen, personal interview

                              with the author, November 1977.]



                              Part of the reason behind the astonishment

                              of many Eckists over the advent of Darwin Gross

                              was because he had been in Eckankar only since

                              1969. Nichols and Albrecht retell the controversy:



                              "According to Bluth, Gross was flown to Las Vegas. . .

                              from Portland, Oregon, where Gross was immediately

                              granted a fifth initiation and briefed extensively for

                              days so that he could pass the scrutiny of the experts.

                              None of the experts were fooled, and there was a fairly

                              large exodus from the movement at the time, including

                              Dr. Bluth and Dr. Wiggelsworth."



                              "Gail had claimed to have had a vision in the middle

                              of the night where Paul had come to her in Nuri Sarup

                              body and told her that Darwin Gross was to be his

                              successor. There was no more mention of20the child

                              that Twitchell supposedly had been training."



                              [Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht, op. cit., pages

                              23-24.] Jim Peebles makes a similar observation:



                              "Here one should remember that Paul

                              left no word as to who his successor should

                              be. . . As it was, Darwin Gross first became

                              interested in Eckankar in 1969, thus he was

                              an Eck Chela for less than a complete two

                              years at the time he was declared to be the

                              new living Eck Master (i.e., Paul's successor)."

                              [Jim Peebles, op. cit., page 12]





                              Darwin Gross was revealed as the new

                              "Living Eck Master" in Las Vegas, when

                              Gail Atkinson Twitchell, Paul's widow,

                              walked over to Darwin and presented him

                              with a blue carnation. Shortly thereafter,

                              to the bewilderment of a number of Eckists,

                              Gail and Darwin were married. However,

                              their marriage was short-lived. In early 1978,

                              Darwin sent a personal letter to a every Eck

                              chela in the world informing them that he

                              and Gail were getting divorced. A couple of

                              years later, Darwin got remarried, but it lasted

                              only a few months and he got the marriage

                              annulled. The ramifications of Darwin's divorce,

                              remarriage, and annulment on the membership

                              in Eckankar in the 1970's is difficult to ascertain.

                              Yet, it can be presumed by the continued growth

                              of Eckankar in the United States that its ultimate


                              impact, like Darwin and Gail's marriage, was

                              nominal.



                              Gail Atkinson, according to the personal

                              letter sent to all Eckists, is still a member

                              of Eckankar and will continue to support the

                              activities of the Eck Master and the group.



                              Post-Twitchellian Eckankar



                              I have used the term "post-Twitchellian"

                              because I think it best emphasizes the crucial

                              importance of Paul Twitchell on Eckankar.



                              The growth of Eckankar, since of the death

                              of its founder, Paul Twitchell, and the advent

                              of Darwin Gross, has been remarkable. Although

                              Darwin has only authored a few books (including

                              the small booklet, Eckankar: A Way of Life ), as

                              compared to Twitchell's enormous output (over

                              sixty texts), Eckankar has increased its membership

                              almost triple.



                              The exact figures have not, as of yet,

                              been released by Eckankar. But in 1970

                              the membership was reported not to exceed

                              twenty-thousand. In 1991 it is estimated

                              that the number is somewhere between

                              forty-thousand and sixty-thousand core

                              members.



                              Since Darwin's acceptance of the mantleship,

                              Eckankar established its Headquarters in Menlo

                              Park--an impressive million dollar building.

                              [Now under the leadership of Harold Klemp,

                              the central headquarters is in Minneapolis,

                              Minnesota.] Yet the most enterprising of Darwin's

                              projects was to build a20spiritual center in Sedona,

                              Arizona. The project, however, had to be abandoned

                              due to lack of finances and a devastating lawsuit

                              taken against Eckankar over property rights in

                              the Sedona area.



                              [See Sedona's Red Rock News (November 5,

                              1980) for more on the lawsuit taken over

                              Eckankar's land holdings.]



                              The Third Living Eck Master: Harold Klemp



                              In October of 1981, Darwin Gross passed

                              on the mantleship of Eckankar to Harold

                              Klemp, a long-standing Eckist. The event

                              took place in Los Angeles, California, at the

                              World-Wide Seminar. For many members,

                              the announcement came as an abrupt transition.

                              Apparently, to ease in the appointment of

                              Harold Klemp, Darwin Gross agreed to work

                              at the International Office in Menlo Park in

                              an advisory capacity. But all did not go well

                              and in 1983 a severe break occurred between

                              Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp, which led

                              to Gross' removal and subsequent excommunication

                              from the fold.



                              [See Part Five for a detailed examination

                              of this most unusual chapter in Eckankar's

                              history.]



                              Although we have examined briefly Paul

                              Twitchell's life and work up to to his death

                              and the successorship of Darwin Gross in

                              Eckankar, we have not, as of yet, studied

                              the most crucial and controversial aspect

                              of Eckankar: namely, the untold story of

                              Paul20Twitchell. The first two parts have

                              served as an introduction, for what follows

                              is the most intriguing, yet the most disputed,

                              aspect of Twitchell's life and work.



                              NOTES

                              1. Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,

                              Ohio Department of Health, Division of Vital

                              Statistics.



                              2. Ibid.



                              3. Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht,

                              op. cit., page 19.



                              4. Ibid.



                              5. Ibid., pages 20-21.



                              6. Ibid., page 20.



                              7. The Eckankar News Release reads: "The

                              announcement was made before an assembly

                              of over a thousand followers at the Flamingo

                              Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross known in spiritual

                              circles as Dap Ren succeeds Paul Twitchell,

                              author of 30 books, master and founder of

                              the present, world-wide Eckankar movement

                              who died (translated) in Cincinnati Sept. 17, 1971."



                              8. Edward Pecen, personal interview with the

                              author, November 1977.



                              9. Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht, op. cit.,

                              pages 23-24.



                              10. Jim Peebles, op. cit., page 12.



                              11. Gail Atkinson, according to the personal letter

                              sent to all Eckists, is still a member of Eckankar

                              and will continue to support the activities of the

                              Eck Master and the group.



                              12. I have used the term "post-Twitchellian" because

                              I think it best emphasizes the crucial importance

                              of Paul Twitch
                              ell on Eckankar.



                              13. The exact figures have not, as of yet, been

                              released by Eckankar. But in 1970 the membership

                              was reported not to exceed twenty-thousand. In

                              the early 1990's it is estimated that the number

                              is anywhere between twenty and forty thousand

                              core members.



                              14. See Sedona's Red Rock News (November 5,

                              1980) for more on the lawsuit taken over Eckankar's

                              land holdings.



                              ******************************************

                              Paul Twitchell (born John Paul Twitchell)

                              (October 22, 1908(?) - September 17, 1971)

                              was an American spiritual writer, author

                              and founder of the group known as Eckankar.

                              He is accepted by the members of that group

                              as the Mahanta, or Living ECK Master of his

                              time. He directed the development of the

                              group through to the time of his death.

                              His spiritual name is believed by Eckists

                              (students of Eckankar) to be Peddar Zaskq.



                              Birth and early life



                              Much of Twitchell's life is shrouded in controversy

                              and uncertainty. His birth date has been disputed;

                              his widow Gail believed he was born in 1922, as

                              evident by his death certificate, but Twitchell himself

                              once claimed his birth year was 1912. Author Ford

                              Johnson, on the other hand, has sided with 1909,

                              based on census information.[1] The 1910 Census

                              indicates that Twitchell was six months old in April

                              1910. Twitchell
                              's birth certificate (registered in 1941)

                              says that he was born 22 October 1912.[2] The young

                              Paul was probably born in Paducah, Kentucky, although

                              this, too, has been disputed.[citation needed]



                              In his later life, Twitchell attended Murray State

                              College and Western Kentucky University in the

                              1930s but never graduated from either.[3] He

                              married for the first time in 1942.[4] He served

                              in the United States Navy during World War II,

                              and became a correspondent for Our Navy after

                              the war. He later went on to become a freelance

                              journalist. [5]



                              He also investigated a number of spiritual movements.

                              In 1950, he joined Swami Premananda's Self-Realization

                              Church of Absolute Monism, an offshoot of Paramahamsa

                              Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship. He lived on

                              the grounds of the church, and edited the church's

                              periodical, The Mystic Cross. He was asked to leave

                              the church in 1955, the same year that he broke up

                              with his first wife.



                              Later that same year, he was initiated into Kirpal

                              Singh into surat shabd yoga. He also became involved

                              in the Church of Scientology, becoming a member

                              of the Church's staff and one of the first Scientologists

                              to achieve the status of clear. [5]



                              In Seattle, he met Gail Atkinson. Twitchell later introduced

                              the woman to Kirpal Singh and later married her. They

                              moved to San Francisco i
                              n 1964, where Twitchell studied

                              surat shabd yoga without the assistance of Kirpal Singh.

                              During the 1960s he lived in California, with his second

                              wife, Gail Atkinson. He pursued a spiritual education

                              under the inspiration of Kirpal Singh, but after a postal

                              correspondence, during which Kirpal Singh critiqued

                              Twitchell's work, Twitchell rejected his teachings. [6]

                              Twitchell then went on to study surat shabd yoga

                              independent of Kirpal Singh. [5]



                              Role in Eckankar



                              Some people believe it was actually Gail's idea that

                              Twitchell adapt some of his spiritual education into

                              a new religion, Eckankar.[7] (Gail broke from the religion

                              in the early 1980s, publicly denouncing Eckankar as

                              an invention, although Twitchell had claimed the religion

                              was ancient).[8] While at first Twitchell allegedly claimed

                              his teachings were new, he eventually referred to them

                              as an ancient science that predated all other major religious

                              belief systems.[9] Indeed, in his book Eckankar: The Key

                              to Secret Worlds, Twitchell claimed he received aid in

                              uncovering Eckankar from the spirit of a predecessor

                              ECK master, Rebazar Tarzs. After the religion was founded

                              or uncovered, Twitchell then turned to writing for magazines.

                              In that position he gave out spiritual advice, claiming

                              to communicate with God about the problems of those

                              who wrote to him. He also attempted prophecy, predicting

                              0Athat the Vietnam War would end in 1968 and that Lyndon

                              Johnson would be elected US President for a second time.

                              Many of his answers were concluded with the words

                              "I HAVE SPOKEN!"[10]



                              Death



                              Twitchell died of a heart attack in late 1971. His death,

                              like his life, was not free of controversy. Some Eckists,

                              including the prominent member Louis Bluth, believed

                              his death was necessary; it was claimed Twitchell had

                              defied the ECK masters of the past. Additionally, many

                              Eckists came to question Twitchell's honesty after his

                              death, since he had predicted that he would continue

                              to lead the faith for another decade and a half. The

                              death was also problematic because Twitchell did not

                              have a chance to name his successor. His widow Gail

                              eventually selected Darwin Gross whom she later married.

                              According to Gail, Gross was indeed Paul Twitchell's

                              choice, as he had visited her in a dream to give his

                              endorsement.[11]



                              This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-

                              contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been

                              reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)



                              prometheus wrote:

                              >

                              > Hello Etznab and All,

                              > I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                              > and found a lot of information. The following

                              > is one source that showed up on this search:

                              >

                              >

                              > Excerpted from a
                              letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                              > former President of Eckankar, one-time

                              > follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                              > personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                              > in 1971:

                              >

                              > Date: June 19, 1980

                              >

                              > My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                              > in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                              > [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                              > speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                              > Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                              > and I considered him honest.

                              >

                              > Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                              > him to believe she was going to leave him

                              > and he desperately wanted to keep her.

                              >

                              > So when she demanded more money and

                              > better living, he started to write things and

                              > copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                              > borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                              > copied a large share from them.

                              >

                              > I helped him write the Herb book and went

                              > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                              > so basically much of the material is good

                              > because it is copied.

                              >

                              > I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                              > he had done and his answer was "since the

                              > author the book said it better than I could

                              > I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave

                              > anyone credit as to where he got20it.

                              >

                              > As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

                              > my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.

                              > I don't think that a Master would divorce

                              > his wife and seek many other female companions.

                              >

                              > Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.

                              >

                              >

                              > 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=2
                              0known about "Eckankar's" origins.

                              > >

                              > > Etznab

                              >
                            • mishmisha9
                              Holy Cow--what s this all about? I don t really get what your gripe is here concerning a few posts/posters? This site has been active for a few years now, it
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 6 3:31 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Holy Cow--what's this all about? I don't really get what
                                your gripe is here concerning a "few" posts/posters? This
                                site has been active for a few years now, it is clearly written
                                in the purpose statement what you can expect to find. It
                                is fairly open to opinions--some back and forth play. But
                                I don't understand what you are bothered by concerning some
                                posts and comments you haven't directly addressed.

                                People who leave eckankar are survivors . . . not victims.
                                There are varying approaches to expression to how these
                                survivors feel about leaving the cult. Of course, there can be some
                                sounds of anger as well as feeling stupid for being duped, and
                                for some it might even seem humorous to have fallen for a con.
                                These feelings are allowed to be expressed. And some of us
                                hang around to keep the discussions current and available
                                for truth seekers. Don't forget "tone" in the ear of the beholder
                                can be interpreted wrongly.

                                Yes, Twitchell was a con man. If I had known him personally
                                I might have found him of some interest but having grown up
                                myself in a small town, it was not uncommon to find prevaricators
                                within the midst of the populace--for some it was a sport to
                                put things over on others. I think Twitchell enjoyed the sport of
                                lying. But I also recognize he was a seeker of God . . . but in
                                the course of his search, I believe he saw the fakery in those
                                who presented themselves as masters--in other words, he saw
                                the lies incorporated in various ancient teachings and thought,
                                hey, why not hone a spiritual teachings to his own liking? This is
                                speculation on my part . . . and nothing is wrong with speculating
                                if it is understood it is speculation and not presented as fact. But
                                there is an abundance of facts about Twitchell and his lies and
                                plagiarisms.

                                I also believe that Twitchell could not resist the profitability of the
                                "teachings" called eckankar he was bringing out to the world. The
                                trouble is he was lying about it, making up eck masters, making up
                                a history for the teachings while copying/plagiarizing from many
                                sources. He made it sound like eckankar was the originator of
                                everything. That is quite a huge lie--the ancient eck teachings only
                                go back to 1965, so that isn't really ancient, is it? And "Those
                                Wonderful ECK Masters" have never existed either--they were all
                                made up. It was kind of neat, though, how Twitchell "honored"
                                his sister by creating the female eck master Kati Daki--so sweet
                                of him really!! : )

                                I think Gail is fair game . . . she walked away with a good amount
                                of money . . . when she could have come clean about it all. To
                                this day she still has not come clean about all these lies. I don't
                                think that is being a nice person to keep the big lie alive!

                                Klemp and co. know it is all a big lie too, but he doesn't have the
                                moral fiber to stop trying to dupe people and con them out of their
                                money. He is robbing them of their spiritual freedom on the ruse
                                that he will show them the way to spiritual greatness. I think he
                                also enjoys the ego trip it affords him . . . without eckankar he
                                would be nothing! LOL!

                                Anyway, I am really curious about your chastisement here in your
                                post. Maybe you should speak more directly to that which bothers
                                you and maybe you could also explain why you think you are above
                                some people posting here? You sound a bit too judgmental . . .
                                and I wonder if "it is true, is it necessary and is it kind?" which by
                                the way is quote from the Buddha--another thing that Twitchell
                                stole. I don't necessarily agree with this formula of thought but it
                                might work in many circumstances but not all. It is basically
                                putting thought processes in a limiting box . . . because actually
                                I think "is is true, is it necessary" are fundamental ideas that
                                should work most if not all the time. But "kind"? Sometimes it is
                                necessary to be unkind; sometimes it is unkind to be truthful.
                                Some people who first start reading the posts here, if they are
                                applying the "is it true, is it necessary, is it kind" rule, just might
                                be taken aback--most eckists have tried to follow this for years
                                and it is difficult to shake it off! This eck rule and calling ideas
                                gossip are really eck speak that simply is a well used eck control
                                technique! : ) Hard to move on when one is still confined to old fake
                                teachings and hinderances. But it does take time to complete the
                                cleansing and healing. I'm sorry I don't really remember how long
                                you have been out of eckankar but I wish you well in your evolution
                                out of eck speak and thought!

                                Anyway, prometheus and many others have done a fine job keeping
                                the discussions going, which indeed do contain historical facts as
                                well as speculations . . . but don't we all speculate as a form of
                                figuring out what has taken place or is taking place . . . I think we
                                all do this regularly with the events of the past and present as well
                                as anticipation of the future. I don't call that gossip!

                                Mish




                                --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "paulji_teen" <tigeroverflow@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > 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
                                > >
                                >
                              • prometheus_973
                                It s interesting to take another look at these 1980 comments. In May or June of 1980 Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from Darwin who Bluth says was not
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 7 10:19 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  It's interesting to take another look at these
                                  1980 comments. In May or June of 1980
                                  Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from
                                  Darwin who Bluth says was not a "Master"
                                  (LEM) based upon his lustful behaviour.

                                  Apparently, Darwin had already "fallen
                                  from Grace" during the time Klemp was
                                  receiving the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and
                                  12th initiations, and the Rod of ECK Power,
                                  (the LEM position) from him! That explains
                                  a lot! Also, in 1980 and 1981 Klemp had
                                  Darwin meet him in the Sound Proofed
                                  Dark Room at the ESC that Klemp worked
                                  in daily in order to discuss the eventual
                                  transition of power. [HK's "Soul Travelers
                                  of the Far Country," CH. 7]

                                  However, we also see that Twitchell was
                                  no "Master" either! Bluth states that he
                                  helped Paul to write "HERBS, The Magic
                                  Healers," and that Paul borrowed his
                                  Radha Soami books. I'm certain that
                                  "The Path of the Masters" was one of
                                  these books. Twitchell's "The Far Country"
                                  is copyrighted in 1970, and there is a
                                  word for word quote on page 131 that
                                  was taken from the beginning of Chapter
                                  2 from "The Path of the Masters."

                                  Thus, a spiritual "ECK Master" of the
                                  highest Order should, also, have integrity!
                                  It's a by-product of having a "higher"
                                  consciousness... right! One Law, from the
                                  Old Testament (of the Bible), states that
                                  "Thou Shall Not Steal." Don't EK Masters,
                                  supposedly, have even higher and more
                                  evolved standards far surpassing these
                                  early basic laws, as well as, early "copyright
                                  laws?" Of course... supposedly! It's a matter
                                  of ethical behaviour and of right and wrong.
                                  Paul was wrong and so is Klemp. Thus,
                                  their negative actions and disregard of
                                  truth and openness shows that they are
                                  deceitful and of the KAL consciousness.

                                  And, there's more information that is
                                  taken from "Path." Both Twitchell and,
                                  now, Klemp have made it their own and
                                  a part of the ECK Dogma without giving
                                  credit to the original source.

                                  Here's the quote from "The Path of the
                                  Masters" CH.6:

                                  "A rule laid down by the noble Buddha
                                  is a most excellent one for all men to
                                  follow. He said that if you propose to
                                  speak, always ask yourself--Is it true,
                                  is it necessary, is it kind?"

                                  Here's what Klemp has to say, [in his
                                  1998 EK Lexicon (pg.159)], about
                                  these words of wisdom coming from
                                  the Buddha, except, HK (also) omits
                                  that the quote came from the Buddha:

                                  "path of the trinity. Three questions
                                  to ask oneself when in doubt about
                                  an action: Is it true? Is it necessary?
                                  Is it kind?"

                                  Recently a poster, on this site, mentioned
                                  that she heard Gail give a talk (1971?)
                                  where she gave Twitchell (her husband)
                                  credit for this quote and, of course, Gail
                                  didn't mention that these thoughts / rules
                                  had originally come from the Buddha!

                                  Gail may have been innocent about knowing
                                  the original source (Buddha) of this one quote,
                                  but she wasn't innocent with regards to
                                  Twitchell's other plagiarisms and religious
                                  scam. Paul states in "Difficulties Of Becoming
                                  the LEM" that Gail encouraged him to share
                                  his religious philosophy and compiled notes
                                  with others and to see if it takes off. It did...
                                  somewhat.

                                  It was that West Coast New Age thinking
                                  that got it (Eckankar, etc.) all started... sort
                                  of how other groups/cults got their start.
                                  But, it's run its course... there's nothing new
                                  (not that it was "new" in the first place) since
                                  these Eastern teachings with "living masters"
                                  (Radhasoami/Ruhani) were merely altered
                                  to fit-in with the Western mindset, and with
                                  Twitchell's exaggerations of truth by 'twisting
                                  facts.' It's obvious that Klemp has nothing
                                  of substance to offer, unless, it's the redundancy
                                  of the past. But, one doesn't need a "living"
                                  master to read or to experience this. Just
                                  imagine and create your own reality as Soul!

                                  Prometheus


                                  prometheus wrote:

                                  Hello All,
                                  I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
                                  and found a lot of information. The following
                                  is one source that showed up on this search:


                                  Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,
                                  former President of Eckankar, one-time
                                  follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's
                                  personal doctor when the Eck leader died
                                  in 1971:

                                  Date: June 19, 1980

                                  My wife and I opened the first Eck class
                                  in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul
                                  [Twitchell] many times and was the main
                                  speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.
                                  Paul was a sincere student in the beginning
                                  and I considered him honest.

                                  Problems between him and his wife Gail led
                                  him to believe she was going to leave him
                                  and he desperately wanted to keep her.

                                  So when she demanded more money and
                                  better living, he started to write things and
                                  copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]
                                  borrowed my books on Radha Soami and
                                  copied a large share from them.

                                  I helped him write the Herb book and went
                                  to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,
                                  so basically much of the material is good
                                  because it is copied.

                                  I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what
                                  he had done and his answer was "since the
                                  author the book said it better than I could
                                  I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave
                                  anyone credit as to where he got it.

                                  As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,
                                  my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.
                                  I don't think that a Master would divorce
                                  his wife and seek many other female companions.

                                  Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                                • etznab@aol.com
                                  Here is another Eckankar quote from The Far Country along with one from The Path of the Masters. [Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell] The whole universe is
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Aug 7 6:39 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Here is another Eckankar quote from The
                                    Far Country along with one from The Path of
                                    the Masters.

                                    [Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell]

                                    " 'The whole universe is considered as One, the
                                    true ECKANKAR. There is perfect oneness in the
                                    universe, which is also co-existent with God, infinite,
                                    unlimited. Hence the SUGMAD is Nirankar, i.e.
                                    formless.' "

                                    Chapter One - The Far Country (Copyright 1970,
                                    3rd Printing 1972, p. 27), by Paul Twitchell (the
                                    modern day founder of Eckankar):

                                    "The whole universe is considered as *one, the
                                    true Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the
                                    universe, which is also coexistent with God - infinite,
                                    unlimited. Hence, the Soami is *nirankar, that is,
                                    formless. As such, he is without personality, hence
                                    without name."

                                    The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson (Chap.
                                    5 - God and the Grand Hierarchy of the Universe,
                                    section 4., 3rd paragraph) - [* = words in italics]:

                                    BTW, there are more paragraphs before & after
                                    (in The Path of the Masters section) which appear
                                    strikingly similar to what Rebazar Tarzs allegedly
                                    told Paul Twitchell to write in The Far Country.

                                    As to when Rebazar Tarzs started appearing to
                                    Paul Twitchell and allegedly "dictating" that book,
                                    The Far Country:

                                    "[....] One of the most interesting things that I find
                                    about this is the timing of when The Far Country
                                    was written. According to Paul, he wrote the book
                                    shortly after meeting Gail,
                                    when he moved down to
                                    San Francisco, which would have been in 1963-1964.
                                    This is the same year Paul gave his copy of The
                                    Tiger's Fang to Kirpal Singh, and introduced Gail to
                                    Kirpal, which resulted in Gail being initiated by Kirpal.
                                    [....]"

                                    http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Six.htm

                                    If Paul Twitchell did copy from The Path of the
                                    Masters, isn't that a little different from saying
                                    Rebazar Tarzs told him to do it?

                                    I wonder. Can it be both?

                                    Any thoughts on this?

                                    **********************************************************

                                    One other comment, about Gail and what she
                                    did or didn't know. Anybody remember this?

                                    "[....]  I remember, however, Gail describing how many
                                    times she had told Paul that he needed to select his
                                    successor before he died - that she wasn't going to be
                                    put in a position where she or anyone else should have
                                    to make such a decision. Gail told Paul quite clearly
                                    that this was Paul's job and if he didn't take care of it
                                    before he left this world, well, that was just too bad,
                                    because she certainly wasn't going to make the selec-
                                    tion. [....]"

                                    http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Four.htm

                                    Why would Gail have to remind Paul Twitchell that
                                    it was HIS responsibility to select the successor and
                                    that she wasn't going to be put in that position? Why
                                    would Paul Twitchell want to put her in that position?

                                    I always thought that was kind of curious.



                                    BTW, I think that previous quote was Doug Marman.
                                    From memory though, I thought there was something
                                    about this subject in Patti Simpson's book Paulji, a
                                    Memoir. If there is time I will go back and do a check
                                    on this to clarify.

                                    Etznab

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                                    To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 12:19 pm
                                    Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Another Look - Dr. Bluth, Paul,
                                    Gail, and Darwin

                                     






                                    It's interesting to take another look at these

                                    1980 comments. In May or June of 1980

                                    Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from

                                    Darwin who Bluth says was not a "Master"

                                    (LEM) based upon his lustful behaviour.



                                    Apparently, Darwin had already "fallen

                                    from Grace" during the time Klemp was

                                    receiving the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and

                                    12th initiations, and the Rod of ECK Power,

                                    (the LEM position) from him! That explains

                                    a lot! Also, in 1980 and 1981 Klemp had

                                    Darwin meet him in the Sound Proofed

                                    Dark Room at the ESC that Klemp worked

                                    in daily in order to discuss the eventual

                                    transition of power. [HK's "Soul Travelers

                                    of the Far Country," CH. 7]



                                    However, we also see that Twitchell was

                                    no "Master" either! Bluth states that he

                                    helped Paul to write "HERBS, The Magic

                                    Healers," and that Paul borrowed his

                                    Radha Soami books. I'm
                                    certain that

                                    "The Path of the Masters" was one of

                                    these books. Twitchell's "The Far Country"

                                    is copyrighted in 1970, and there is a

                                    word for word quote on page 131 that

                                    was taken from the beginning of Chapter

                                    2 from "The Path of the Masters."



                                    Thus, a spiritual "ECK Master" of the

                                    highest Order should, also, have integrity!

                                    It's a by-product of having a "higher"

                                    consciousness... right! One Law, from the

                                    Old Testament (of the Bible), states that

                                    "Thou Shall Not Steal." Don't EK Masters,

                                    supposedly, have even higher and more

                                    evolved standards far surpassing these

                                    early basic laws, as well as, early "copyright

                                    laws?" Of course... supposedly! It's a matter

                                    of ethical behaviour and of right and wrong.

                                    Paul was wrong and so is Klemp. Thus,

                                    their negative actions and disregard of

                                    truth and openness shows that they are

                                    deceitful and of the KAL consciousness.



                                    And, there's more information that is

                                    taken from "Path." Both Twitchell and,

                                    now, Klemp have made it their own and

                                    a part of the ECK Dogma without giving

                                    credit to the original source.



                                    Here's the quote from "The Path of the

                                    Masters" CH.6:



                                    "A rule laid down by the noble Buddha

                                    is a most excellent one for all men to

                                    follow. He said that if you propose to

                                    speak, always ask yourself--Is it true,


                                    is it necessary, is it kind?"



                                    Here's what Klemp has to say, [in his

                                    1998 EK Lexicon (pg.159)], about

                                    these words of wisdom coming from

                                    the Buddha, except, HK (also) omits

                                    that the quote came from the Buddha:



                                    "path of the trinity. Three questions

                                    to ask oneself when in doubt about

                                    an action: Is it true? Is it necessary?

                                    Is it kind?"



                                    Recently a poster, on this site, mentioned

                                    that she heard Gail give a talk (1971?)

                                    where she gave Twitchell (her husband)

                                    credit for this quote and, of course, Gail

                                    didn't mention that these thoughts / rules

                                    had originally come from the Buddha!



                                    Gail may have been innocent about knowing

                                    the original source (Buddha) of this one quote,

                                    but she wasn't innocent with regards to

                                    Twitchell's other plagiarisms and religious

                                    scam. Paul states in "Difficulties Of Becoming

                                    the LEM" that Gail encouraged him to share

                                    his religious philosophy and compiled notes

                                    with others and to see if it takes off. It did...

                                    somewhat.



                                    It was that West Coast New Age thinking

                                    that got it (Eckankar, etc.) all started... sort

                                    of how other groups/cults got their start.

                                    But, it's run its course... there's nothing new

                                    (not that it was "new" in the first place) since

                                    these Eastern teachings with "living masters"

                                    (Radhasoami/Ruhani) were merely altered

                                    to fi
                                    t-in with the Western mindset, and with

                                    Twitchell's exaggerations of truth by 'twisting

                                    facts.' It's obvious that Klemp has nothing

                                    of substance to offer, unless, it's the redundancy

                                    of the past. But, one doesn't need a "living"

                                    master to read or to experience this. Just

                                    imagine and create your own reality as Soul!



                                    Prometheus



                                    prometheus wrote:



                                    Hello All,

                                    I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                                    and found a lot of information. The following

                                    is one source that showed up on this search:



                                    Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                                    former President of Eckankar, one-time

                                    follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                                    personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                                    in 1971:



                                    Date: June 19, 1980



                                    My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                                    in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                                    [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                                    speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                                    Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                                    and I considered him honest.



                                    Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                                    him to believe she was going to leave him

                                    and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                                    So when she demanded more money and

                                    better living, he started to write things and

                                    copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                                    borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                                    copied a large shar
                                    e from them.



                                    I helped him write the Herb book and went

                                    to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                                    so basically much of the material is good

                                    because it is copied.



                                    I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                                    he had done and his answer was "since the

                                    author the book said it better than I could

                                    I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave

                                    anyone credit as to where he got it.



                                    As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

                                    my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.

                                    I don't think that a Master would divorce

                                    his wife and seek many other female companions.



                                    Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.