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

Re: plagiarism and Paul

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Aug 2, 2009
      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 2 of 16 , Aug 3, 2009
        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 3 of 16 , Aug 4, 2009
          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 4 of 16 , Aug 4, 2009
            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 5 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
              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 6 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
                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 7 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
                  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 8 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
                    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 9 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
                      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 10 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                        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 11 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                          Hello paulji teen and All,
                          For one thing this is an anti-Eckankar site
                          and Eckankar is a religion (cult) vs. a "path."
                          And, It's okay if (on the thread) people vary
                          off course some with "history." In many ways
                          it's all connected. Dr. Bluth's letter confirms
                          what I've heard about Gail and this isn't gossip
                          it's an analysis with personal observation and
                          is based upon many factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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


                          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 12 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                            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 13 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                              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 14 of 16 , Aug 7, 2009
                                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 15 of 16 , Aug 7, 2009
                                  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.