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

Re: plagiarism and Paul - more comments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Aug 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Paulji teen and All,
      I just had a few more observations
      and wanted to address some previous
      comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.

      Pji Teen:
      Secondly, is there a possibility that when
      Illuminated Way Press went to print they
      didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
      would have anchored these passages?

      P-
      I doubt that this happened since there
      are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
      And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
      EK Masters as his "source" rather than
      admit to the truth of his theft.

      For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
      his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
      and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.

      Klemp came up with the Astral Library
      story to explain away the accusations
      of plagiarism. However, he also shot
      himself in the foot by pointing out that
      these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
      than Astral Plane teachings!


      Pji Teen:
      Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
      on the earlier works, so he didn't think
      to footnote passages?

      P-
      It's strange that PT would give Bible
      quotes and reference the source in
      the same text. He also did this with
      other writers just as Klemp does. But,
      PT doesn't do this with regard to The
      Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
      pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
      I'm looking in the back of my combined
      Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
      any references! Thus, he'll give it as
      he writes it. Therefore, it was an
      intentional omission when PT didn't
      mention "The Path of the Masters"
      when he uses quotes from this book.

      However, I must say that Twit was sly,
      but those are the credentials of a con-
      man. As I pointed out in the beginning
      of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
      a quote word for word in his "The Far
      Country" page 131. Here's a partial
      quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
      is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
      has repeated it in substance." Now,
      it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
      paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
      and, thus, didn't quote them. However,
      Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
      and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
      style and his creativity! This is unethical!
      Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
      ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
      longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
      benefit of the doubt since it is all based
      upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
      and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
      That's a distortion of other religious
      teachings including Ruhani Satsang
      and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
      give this "source." The excuse/con is
      that It either came from the "Astral
      Library" or it came from the ECK.
      Catch-22!


      Pji Teen:
      As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
      first. One of my areas of interest is
      tracking current plagiarism in media
      and journalism - it is rampant! The
      disregard for fact-checking, and just
      recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
      Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
      pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
      to do things, as well - and it just carried
      over into the Eck writings? I don't
      know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.

      P-
      IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
      stretch of the imagination. He was
      a hack. Most of the things that he
      wrote didn't require research into
      many facts and when it did Twit
      would often make up his own.
      Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
      had to do with recycling old stories
      and making some minor changes
      to disguise them. And, yes, this did
      carry over to his ECKankar writings.

      Pji Teen:
      My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
      coming through -- we've all grown
      up with plagiarism. (Think about how
      many times your parents told you
      something that probably has been
      recited for generations?) I'm not so
      ready to "shoot the messenger".
      Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
      positive purpose in the world.
      Maybe a risk at another analogy -
      if you are really thirsty - do you
      really care where the water came
      from, as long as it is safe to drink?

      P-
      I think most of our parents told us
      recycled stories about Santa Claus
      and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
      tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
      for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
      is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
      is safe to drink? Some impurities
      are tasteless and show up over time.
      As I pointed out once before... the
      big pivot point for Twitchell was
      when he created the "Mahanta"
      title for himself in January 1969.
      This is when PT placed an enormous
      and unattainable gap between
      himself and his followers. He did
      this in order to out-do John-
      Rogers (a follower who left EK
      and started his own religion by
      using PT's discourses etc.). And,
      Twit wanted to place himself heads
      above every other "Master" and/or
      critic (including Kirpal) by placing
      himself in a position beyond reproach.
      After all, how can anyone criticize,
      even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
      having the highest "God-Knowledge?"
      More Catch-22!

      Prometheus


      ****
      Hello Paulji teen and All,
      Interesting comments! I can recall
      that someone wrote that Paul was
      told by Orion Press not to submit
      anymore articles to them because
      he had been caught plagiarizing.

      Now, this whole episode took place
      long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
      Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
      plagiarizing was both an unethical
      practice and an illegal behaviour.
      The magazine could have been sued
      and could have lost all credibility
      with their readers by having to place
      retractions in future editions.

      However, this incident didn't seem
      to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
      help but lie and deceive with another's
      words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
      for comparison, and there are more in
      the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
      also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
      of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
      copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
      from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
      Masters" as his handbook to create his
      "new" religious sect... Eckankar.

      The thing that Paul did, creating a new
      sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
      for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
      Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
      a successor, or there is a disagreement
      with the choice (another has more
      followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
      is formed. This is how new (major)
      religions are created too! Local, Christian,
      Churches do the same! However, Paul,
      Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
      the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.

      Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
      guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
      was one standard and there are others for
      writers and researchers. When I got into
      research papers for my major the standards
      became much more stringent on footnoting
      and everything else.

      However, many of these standards concerning
      morals and ethics have been around for decades.
      Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
      should have known about these ethical standards
      since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
      a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
      Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
      librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
      command. Gail certainly knew something about
      ethics and plagiarism.

      However, when greed becomes the focus
      and one needs to churn out books, for the
      new members, in order to makeup for lost
      time, then ethics get placed on the back
      burner. And, Paul had a track record for
      embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
      pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
      was doing his lying and self-promotion
      about himself and his travels at age 27,
      in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
      while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
      to have made a trip to India. HK states that
      PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
      trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
      (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
      own research into these dates! Klemp just
      didn't see that he provided the dates that
      prove that Twit was lying about meeting
      Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
      LOL!

      Prometheus


      paulji_teen wrote:

      This topic seems to keep coming up...

      I can only speak to my own experience.
      In the 1960s in my first experience
      writing papers, in school I was taught
      one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
      By the time I hit high school, the rules
      for this had slightly changed. By university,
      there were even more rules related to
      without giving credit, etc.

      I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
      shifting, or, as students we were just
      getting more clarity from professors.

      Paul may have thought it was okay to
      list short passages. What I don't know --
      are you finding like full pages, or full
      chapters, that word for word are identical?

      Secondly, is there a possibility that when
      Illuminated Way Press went to print they
      didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
      would have anchored these passages?

      Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
      on the earlier works, so he didn't think
      to footnote passages?

      Today's research writers, I think, are
      more careful about plagiarism as there
      are more lawsuits and more legal and
      collegiate focus on educating writers about
      plagiarism.

      As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
      first. One of my areas of interest is
      tracking current plagiarism in media
      and journalism - it is rampant! The
      disregard for fact-checking, and just
      recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
      Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
      pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
      to do things, as well - and it just carried
      over into the Eck writings? I don't
      know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.

      My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
      coming through -- we've all grown
      up with plagiarism. (Think about how
      many times your parents told you
      something that probably has been
      recited for generations?) I'm not so
      ready to "shoot the messenger".
      Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
      positive purpose in the world.
      Maybe a risk at another analogy -
      if you are really thirsty - do you
      really care where the water came
      from, as long as it is safe to drink?

      Paulji_teen
    • prometheus_973
      I was thinking about this 01/01/1969 Mahanta event and recalled that Twitchell was having some trouble with a few disgruntled H.I.s around this timeframe. Paul
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
        Mahanta event and recalled that
        Twitchell was having some trouble
        with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
        this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
        Year Plan where he was going to hand
        over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
        in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
        to take root and grow Paul changed
        his mind about handing it over. Paul
        shared his new plans and the change
        outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
        who thought they were next in-line
        and would be taking over. They felt
        betrayed.

        Add this internal EK conflict to the
        John-Rogers problems, (and competition
        with other groups), to the negative
        comments coming from the U.S. reps
        of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
        group and voila'!

        PT now had the reasons and need
        to create the title of "Mahanta" that
        gave him complete control and, thus,
        placed himself heads above all others.
        This title and its definition he created
        made PT the King of the Hill. No one
        could challenge or question his decisions
        since they didn't have his divine powers
        or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
        known to mankind!

        How dare anyone to question PT's new
        "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
        himself) since it was something they could
        know nothing about because they are
        of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
        of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
        sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
        has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
        the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
        tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
        or to recommended materials, it's an easy
        ploy to pull off.

        Anyway, before Eckankar started to make
        big money Paul was as happy as a clam
        promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
        his views of the "path." However, Paul had
        a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
        support and impress, and she had her needs
        too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
        Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
        scheme where Eckists were members of her
        sales staff.

        All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
        and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
        why I said that this was a pivotal time and
        a complete change of direction for Eckankar.

        Prometheus

        Hello Paulji teen and All,
        I just had a few more observations
        and wanted to address some previous
        comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.

        Pji Teen:
        Secondly, is there a possibility that when
        Illuminated Way Press went to print they
        didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
        would have anchored these passages?

        P-
        I doubt that this happened since there
        are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
        And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
        EK Masters as his "source" rather than
        admit to the truth of his theft.

        For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
        his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
        and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.

        Klemp came up with the Astral Library
        story to explain away the accusations
        of plagiarism. However, he also shot
        himself in the foot by pointing out that
        these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
        than Astral Plane teachings!


        Pji Teen:
        Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
        on the earlier works, so he didn't think
        to footnote passages?

        P-
        It's strange that PT would give Bible
        quotes and reference the source in
        the same text. He also did this with
        other writers just as Klemp does. But,
        PT doesn't do this with regard to The
        Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
        pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
        I'm looking in the back of my combined
        Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
        any references! Thus, he'll give it as
        he writes it. Therefore, it was an
        intentional omission when PT didn't
        mention "The Path of the Masters"
        when he uses quotes from this book.

        However, I must say that Twit was sly,
        but those are the credentials of a con-
        man. As I pointed out in the beginning
        of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
        a quote word for word in his "The Far
        Country" page 131. Here's a partial
        quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
        is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
        has repeated it in substance." Now,
        it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
        paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
        and, thus, didn't quote them. However,
        Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
        and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
        style and his creativity! This is unethical!
        Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
        ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
        longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
        benefit of the doubt since it is all based
        upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
        and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
        That's a distortion of other religious
        teachings including Ruhani Satsang
        and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
        give this "source." The excuse/con is
        that It either came from the "Astral
        Library" or it came from the ECK.
        Catch-22!


        Pji Teen:
        As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
        first. One of my areas of interest is
        tracking current plagiarism in media
        and journalism - it is rampant! The
        disregard for fact-checking, and just
        recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
        Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
        pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
        to do things, as well - and it just carried
        over into the Eck writings? I don't
        know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.

        P-
        IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
        stretch of the imagination. He was
        a hack. Most of the things that he
        wrote didn't require research into
        many facts and when it did Twit
        would often make up his own.
        Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
        had to do with recycling old stories
        and making some minor changes
        to disguise them. And, yes, this did
        carry over to his ECKankar writings.

        Pji Teen:
        My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
        coming through -- we've all grown
        up with plagiarism. (Think about how
        many times your parents told you
        something that probably has been
        recited for generations?) I'm not so
        ready to "shoot the messenger".
        Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
        positive purpose in the world.
        Maybe a risk at another analogy -
        if you are really thirsty - do you
        really care where the water came
        from, as long as it is safe to drink?

        P-
        I think most of our parents told us
        recycled stories about Santa Claus
        and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
        tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
        for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
        is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
        is safe to drink? Some impurities
        are tasteless and show up over time.
        As I pointed out once before... the
        big pivot point for Twitchell was
        when he created the "Mahanta"
        title for himself in January 1969.
        This is when PT placed an enormous
        and unattainable gap between
        himself and his followers. He did
        this in order to out-do John-
        Rogers (a follower who left EK
        and started his own religion by
        using PT's discourses etc.). And,
        Twit wanted to place himself heads
        above every other "Master" and/or
        critic (including Kirpal) by placing
        himself in a position beyond reproach.
        After all, how can anyone criticize,
        even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
        having the highest "God-Knowledge?"
        More Catch-22!

        Prometheus


        ****
        Hello Paulji teen and All,
        Interesting comments! I can recall
        that someone wrote that Paul was
        told by Orion Press not to submit
        anymore articles to them because
        he had been caught plagiarizing.

        Now, this whole episode took place
        long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
        Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
        plagiarizing was both an unethical
        practice and an illegal behaviour.
        The magazine could have been sued
        and could have lost all credibility
        with their readers by having to place
        retractions in future editions.

        However, this incident didn't seem
        to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
        help but lie and deceive with another's
        words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
        for comparison, and there are more in
        the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
        also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
        of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
        copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
        from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
        Masters" as his handbook to create his
        "new" religious sect... Eckankar.

        The thing that Paul did, creating a new
        sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
        for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
        Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
        a successor, or there is a disagreement
        with the choice (another has more
        followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
        is formed. This is how new (major)
        religions are created too! Local, Christian,
        Churches do the same! However, Paul,
        Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
        the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.

        Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
        guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
        was one standard and there are others for
        writers and researchers. When I got into
        research papers for my major the standards
        became much more stringent on footnoting
        and everything else.

        However, many of these standards concerning
        morals and ethics have been around for decades.
        Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
        should have known about these ethical standards
        since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
        a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
        Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
        librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
        command. Gail certainly knew something about
        ethics and plagiarism.

        However, when greed becomes the focus
        and one needs to churn out books, for the
        new members, in order to makeup for lost
        time, then ethics get placed on the back
        burner. And, Paul had a track record for
        embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
        pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
        was doing his lying and self-promotion
        about himself and his travels at age 27,
        in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
        while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
        to have made a trip to India. HK states that
        PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
        trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
        (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
        own research into these dates! Klemp just
        didn't see that he provided the dates that
        prove that Twit was lying about meeting
        Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
        LOL!

        Prometheus


        paulji_teen wrote:

        This topic seems to keep coming up...

        I can only speak to my own experience.
        In the 1960s in my first experience
        writing papers, in school I was taught
        one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
        By the time I hit high school, the rules
        for this had slightly changed. By university,
        there were even more rules related to
        without giving credit, etc.

        I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
        shifting, or, as students we were just
        getting more clarity from professors.

        Paul may have thought it was okay to
        list short passages. What I don't know --
        are you finding like full pages, or full
        chapters, that word for word are identical?

        Secondly, is there a possibility that when
        Illuminated Way Press went to print they
        didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
        would have anchored these passages?

        Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
        on the earlier works, so he didn't think
        to footnote passages?

        Today's research writers, I think, are
        more careful about plagiarism as there
        are more lawsuits and more legal and
        collegiate focus on educating writers about
        plagiarism.

        As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
        first. One of my areas of interest is
        tracking current plagiarism in media
        and journalism - it is rampant! The
        disregard for fact-checking, and just
        recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
        Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
        pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
        to do things, as well - and it just carried
        over into the Eck writings? I don't
        know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.

        My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
        coming through -- we've all grown
        up with plagiarism. (Think about how
        many times your parents told you
        something that probably has been
        recited for generations?) I'm not so
        ready to "shoot the messenger".
        Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
        positive purpose in the world.
        Maybe a risk at another analogy -
        if you are really thirsty - do you
        really care where the water came
        from, as long as it is safe to drink?

        Paulji_teen
      • etznab@aol.com
        I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar over to anybody. I suspect he didn t trust it in the hands of anybody else (didn t know what they would do with it).
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
          over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
          the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
          they would do with it).

          Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
          to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
          And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
          some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
          body else should have known whether plagiar-
          isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
          Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
          other authors. What was Bluth's position in
          Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
          personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
          president of Eckankar?

          I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
          and that is why one was the Master and the
          other the President. What I mean is, the two
          must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.

          Etznab

          -----Original Message-----
          From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 12:21 pm
          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta"
          Creation in 1969

           






          I was thinking about this 01/01/1969

          Mahanta event and recalled that

          Twitchell was having some trouble

          with a few disgruntled H.I.s around

          this timeframe. Paul had had a Five

          Year Plan where he was going to hand

          over the EK (LEM) leadership to another

          in 1970. However, as Eckankar began

          to take root and gr
          ow Paul changed

          his mind about handing it over. Paul

          shared his new plans and the change

          outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)

          who thought they were next in-line

          and would be taking over. They felt

          betrayed.



          Add this internal EK conflict to the

          John-Rogers problems, (and competition

          with other groups), to the negative

          comments coming from the U.S. reps

          of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang

          group and voila'!



          PT now had the reasons and need

          to create the title of "Mahanta" that

          gave him complete control and, thus,

          placed himself heads above all others.

          This title and its definition he created

          made PT the King of the Hill. No one

          could challenge or question his decisions

          since they didn't have his divine powers

          or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness

          known to mankind!



          How dare anyone to question PT's new

          "Mahanta" authority (that he created for

          himself) since it was something they could

          know nothing about because they are

          of a lower initiation and of a lower plane

          of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who

          sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),

          has the authority to guide ALL Souls on

          the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists

          tend to limit their reading to Ek books,

          or to recommended materials, it's an easy

          ploy to pull off.



          Anyway,=2
          0before Eckankar started to make

          big money Paul was as happy as a clam

          promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing

          his views of the "path." However, Paul had

          a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to

          support and impress, and she had her needs

          too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.

          Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin

          scheme where Eckists were members of her

          sales staff.



          All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar

          and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's

          why I said that this was a pivotal time and

          a complete change of direction for Eckankar.



          Prometheus



          Hello Paulji teen and All,

          I just had a few more observations

          and wanted to address some previous

          comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.



          Pji Teen:

          Secondly, is there a possibility that when

          Illuminated Way Press went to print they

          didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe

          would have anchored these passages?



          P-

          I doubt that this happened since there

          are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.

          And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other

          EK Masters as his "source" rather than

          admit to the truth of his theft.



          For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as

          his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,

          and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.



          Klemp came up with the Astral Library
          0A
          story to explain away the accusations

          of plagiarism. However, he also shot

          himself in the foot by pointing out that

          these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher

          than Astral Plane teachings!



          Pji Teen:

          Thirdly, were the copyrights expired

          on the earlier works, so he didn't think

          to footnote passages?



          P-

          It's strange that PT would give Bible

          quotes and reference the source in

          the same text. He also did this with

          other writers just as Klemp does. But,

          PT doesn't do this with regard to The

          Path of the Masters. How many footnoted

          pages are there in ALL of PT's works?

          I'm looking in the back of my combined

          Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see

          any references! Thus, he'll give it as

          he writes it. Therefore, it was an

          intentional omission when PT didn't

          mention "The Path of the Masters"

          when he uses quotes from this book.



          However, I must say that Twit was sly,

          but those are the credentials of a con-

          man. As I pointed out in the beginning

          of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used

          a quote word for word in his "The Far

          Country" page 131. Here's a partial

          quote. "Voltaire has said that religion

          is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche

          has repeated it in substance." Now,

          it seems that Julian P. Johnson was

          paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,

          and
          , thus, didn't quote them. However,

          Twitchell took Johnson's exact words

          and thoughts. Twit stole his writing

          style and his creativity! This is unethical!

          Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have

          ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any

          longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the

          benefit of the doubt since it is all based

          upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions

          and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!

          That's a distortion of other religious

          teachings including Ruhani Satsang

          and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK

          give this "source." The excuse/con is

          that It either came from the "Astral

          Library" or it came from the ECK.

          Catch-22!



          Pji Teen:

          As a side note: Paul was a journalist,

          first. One of my areas of interest is

          tracking current plagiarism in media

          and journalism - it is rampant! The

          disregard for fact-checking, and just

          recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.

          Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,

          pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way

          to do things, as well - and it just carried

          over into the Eck writings? I don't

          know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.



          P-

          IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a

          stretch of the imagination. He was

          a hack. Most of the things that he

          wrote didn't require research into

          many facts and when it did Twit

          would often make up his
          own.

          Track his Orion plagiarisms. This

          had to do with recycling old stories

          and making some minor changes

          to disguise them. And, yes, this did

          carry over to his ECKankar writings.



          Pji Teen:

          My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably

          coming through -- we've all grown

          up with plagiarism. (Think about how

          many times your parents told you

          something that probably has been

          recited for generations?) I'm not so

          ready to "shoot the messenger".

          Eckankar has and does serve a mostly

          positive purpose in the world.

          Maybe a risk at another analogy -

          if you are really thirsty - do you

          really care where the water came

          from, as long as it is safe to drink?



          P-

          I think most of our parents told us

          recycled stories about Santa Claus

          and the Easter Bunny, or old wives

          tales... or urban legends. PT wrote

          for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why

          is it that PT's Eckankar "water"

          is safe to drink? Some impurities

          are tasteless and show up over time.

          As I pointed out once before... the

          big pivot point for Twitchell was

          when he created the "Mahanta"

          title for himself in January 1969.

          This is when PT placed an enormous

          and unattainable gap between

          himself and his followers. He did

          this in order to out-do John-

          Rogers (a follower who left EK

          and started20his own religion by

          using PT's discourses etc.). And,

          Twit wanted to place himself heads

          above every other "Master" and/or

          critic (including Kirpal) by placing

          himself in a position beyond reproach.

          After all, how can anyone criticize,

          even, a self-proclaimed GOD without

          having the highest "God-Knowledge?"

          More Catch-22!



          Prometheus



          ****

          Hello Paulji teen and All,

          Interesting comments! I can recall

          that someone wrote that Paul was

          told by Orion Press not to submit

          anymore articles to them because

          he had been caught plagiarizing.



          Now, this whole episode took place

          long before Twitchell created Eckankar.

          Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his

          plagiarizing was both an unethical

          practice and an illegal behaviour.

          The magazine could have been sued

          and could have lost all credibility

          with their readers by having to place

          retractions in future editions.



          However, this incident didn't seem

          to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't

          help but lie and deceive with another's

          words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,

          for comparison, and there are more in

          the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,

          also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"

          of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul

          copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path

          from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the


          Masters" as his handbook to create his

          "new" religious sect... Eckankar.



          The thing that Paul did, creating a new

          sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)

          for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a

          Master dies and doesn't directly appoint

          a successor, or there is a disagreement

          with the choice (another has more

          followers, etc.) then another sect/faction

          is formed. This is how new (major)

          religions are created too! Local, Christian,

          Churches do the same! However, Paul,

          Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden

          the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.



          Yes, I had to use ethical standards and

          guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA

          was one standard and there are others for

          writers and researchers. When I got into

          research papers for my major the standards

          became much more stringent on footnoting

          and everything else.



          However, many of these standards concerning

          morals and ethics have been around for decades.

          Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul

          should have known about these ethical standards

          since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and

          a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian

          Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former

          librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in

          command. Gail certainly knew something about

          ethics and plagiarism.



          However, when greed becomes the focus


          and one needs to churn out books, for the

          new members, in order to makeup for lost

          time, then ethics get placed on the back

          burner. And, Paul had a track record for

          embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has

          pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul

          was doing his lying and self-promotion

          about himself and his travels at age 27,

          in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky

          while in that same year, 1935, is claiming

          to have made a trip to India. HK states that

          PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"

          trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935

          (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's

          own research into these dates! Klemp just

          didn't see that he provided the dates that

          prove that Twit was lying about meeting

          Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!

          LOL!



          Prometheus



          paulji_teen wrote:



          This topic seems to keep coming up...



          I can only speak to my own experience.

          In the 1960s in my first experience

          writing papers, in school I was taught

          one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.

          By the time I hit high school, the rules

          for this had slightly changed. By university,

          there were even more rules related to

          without giving credit, etc.



          I don't know if the plagiarism laws were

          shifting, or, as students we were just

          getting more clarity fro
          m professors.



          Paul may have thought it was okay to

          list short passages. What I don't know --

          are you finding like full pages, or full

          chapters, that word for word are identical?



          Secondly, is there a possibility that when

          Illuminated Way Press went to print they

          didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe

          would have anchored these passages?



          Thirdly, were the copyrights expired

          on the earlier works, so he didn't think

          to footnote passages?



          Today's research writers, I think, are

          more careful about plagiarism as there

          are more lawsuits and more legal and

          collegiate focus on educating writers about

          plagiarism.



          As a side note: Paul was a journalist,

          first. One of my areas of interest is

          tracking current plagiarism in media

          and journalism - it is rampant! The

          disregard for fact-checking, and just

          recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.

          Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,

          pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way

          to do things, as well - and it just carried

          over into the Eck writings? I don't

          know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.



          My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably

          coming through -- we've all grown

          up with plagiarism. (Think about how

          many times your parents told you

          something that probably has been

          recited for generations?) I'm not so
          =0
          A
          ready to "shoot the messenger".

          Eckankar has and does serve a mostly

          positive purpose in the world.

          Maybe a risk at another analogy -

          if you are really thirsty - do you

          really care where the water came

          from, as long as it is safe to drink?



          Paulji_teen
        • prometheus_973
          Hello Leanne and All, Well, you re close. That s Sunasu Vitamins. I m not sure if Gail sold this company off or still has some involvement with it. The
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Leanne and All,
            Well, you're close. That's Sunasu Vitamins.
            I'm not sure if Gail sold this company
            off or still has some involvement with
            it. The products now seem to be sold
            by individual distributors (multi-level
            marketing) like Amway or Shaklee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Prometheus


            le_anne wrote:

            sununu vitamins?


            prometheus wrote:

            I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
            Mahanta event and recalled that
            Twitchell was having some trouble
            with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
            this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
            Year Plan where he was going to hand
            over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
            in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
            to take root and grow Paul changed
            his mind about handing it over. Paul
            shared his new plans and the change
            outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
            who thought they were next in-line
            and would be taking over. They felt
            betrayed.

            Add this internal EK conflict to the
            John-Rogers problems, (and competition
            with other groups), to the negative
            comments coming from the U.S. reps
            of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
            group and voila'!

            PT now had the reasons and need
            to create the title of "Mahanta" that
            gave him complete control and, thus,
            placed himself heads above all others.
            This title and its definition he created
            made PT the King of the Hill. No one
            could challenge or question his decisions
            since they didn't have his divine powers
            or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
            known to mankind!

            How dare anyone to question PT's new
            "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
            himself) since it was something they could
            know nothing about because they are
            of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
            of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
            sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
            has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
            the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
            tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
            or to recommended materials, it's an easy
            ploy to pull off.

            Anyway, before Eckankar started to make
            big money Paul was as happy as a clam
            promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
            his views of the "path." However, Paul had
            a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
            support and impress, and she had her needs
            too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
            Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
            scheme where Eckists were members of her
            sales staff.

            All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
            and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
            why I said that this was a pivotal time and
            a complete change of direction for Eckankar.

            Prometheus

            Hello Paulji teen and All,
            I just had a few more observations
            and wanted to address some previous
            comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.

            Pji Teen:
            Secondly, is there a possibility that when
            Illuminated Way Press went to print they
            didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
            would have anchored these passages?

            P-
            I doubt that this happened since there
            are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
            And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
            EK Masters as his "source" rather than
            admit to the truth of his theft.

            For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
            his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
            and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.

            Klemp came up with the Astral Library
            story to explain away the accusations
            of plagiarism. However, he also shot
            himself in the foot by pointing out that
            these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
            than Astral Plane teachings!

            Pji Teen:
            Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
            on the earlier works, so he didn't think
            to footnote passages?

            P-
            It's strange that PT would give Bible
            quotes and reference the source in
            the same text. He also did this with
            other writers just as Klemp does. But,
            PT doesn't do this with regard to The
            Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
            pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
            I'm looking in the back of my combined
            Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
            any references! Thus, he'll give it as
            he writes it. Therefore, it was an
            intentional omission when PT didn't
            mention "The Path of the Masters"
            when he uses quotes from this book.

            However, I must say that Twit was sly,
            but those are the credentials of a con-
            man. As I pointed out in the beginning
            of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
            a quote word for word in his "The Far
            Country" page 131. Here's a partial
            quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
            is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
            has repeated it in substance." Now,
            it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
            paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
            and, thus, didn't quote them. However,
            Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
            and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
            style and his creativity! This is unethical!
            Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
            ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
            longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
            benefit of the doubt since it is all based
            upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
            and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
            That's a distortion of other religious
            teachings including Ruhani Satsang
            and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
            give this "source." The excuse/con is
            that It either came from the "Astral
            Library" or it came from the ECK.
            Catch-22!

            Pji Teen:
            As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
            first. One of my areas of interest is
            tracking current plagiarism in media
            and journalism - it is rampant! The
            disregard for fact-checking, and just
            recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
            Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
            pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
            to do things, as well - and it just carried
            over into the Eck writings? I don't
            know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.

            P-
            IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
            stretch of the imagination. He was
            a hack. Most of the things that he
            wrote didn't require research into
            many facts and when it did Twit
            would often make up his own.
            Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
            had to do with recycling old stories
            and making some minor changes
            to disguise them. And, yes, this did
            carry over to his ECKankar writings.

            Pji Teen:
            My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
            coming through -- we've all grown
            up with plagiarism. (Think about how
            many times your parents told you
            something that probably has been
            recited for generations? ) I'm not so
            ready to "shoot the messenger".
            Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
            positive purpose in the world.
            Maybe a risk at another analogy -
            if you are really thirsty - do you
            really care where the water came
            from, as long as it is safe to drink?

            P-
            I think most of our parents told us
            recycled stories about Santa Claus
            and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
            tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
            for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
            is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
            is safe to drink? Some impurities
            are tasteless and show up over time.
            As I pointed out once before... the
            big pivot point for Twitchell was
            when he created the "Mahanta"
            title for himself in January 1969.
            This is when PT placed an enormous
            and unattainable gap between
            himself and his followers. He did
            this in order to out-do John-
            Rogers (a follower who left EK
            and started his own religion by
            using PT's discourses etc.). And,
            Twit wanted to place himself heads
            above every other "Master" and/or
            critic (including Kirpal) by placing
            himself in a position beyond reproach.
            After all, how can anyone criticize,
            even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
            having the highest "God-Knowledge? "
            More Catch-22!

            Prometheus

            ****
            Hello Paulji teen and All,
            Interesting comments! I can recall
            that someone wrote that Paul was
            told by Orion Press not to submit
            anymore articles to them because
            he had been caught plagiarizing.

            Now, this whole episode took place
            long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
            Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
            plagiarizing was both an unethical
            practice and an illegal behaviour.
            The magazine could have been sued
            and could have lost all credibility
            with their readers by having to place
            retractions in future editions.

            However, this incident didn't seem
            to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
            help but lie and deceive with another's
            words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
            for comparison, and there are more in
            the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
            also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
            of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
            copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
            from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
            Masters" as his handbook to create his
            "new" religious sect... Eckankar.

            The thing that Paul did, creating a new
            sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
            for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
            Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
            a successor, or there is a disagreement
            with the choice (another has more
            followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
            is formed. This is how new (major)
            religions are created too! Local, Christian,
            Churches do the same! However, Paul,
            Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
            the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.

            Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
            guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
            was one standard and there are others for
            writers and researchers. When I got into
            research papers for my major the standards
            became much more stringent on footnoting
            and everything else.

            However, many of these standards concerning
            morals and ethics have been around for decades.
            Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
            should have known about these ethical standards
            since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
            a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
            Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
            librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
            command. Gail certainly knew something about
            ethics and plagiarism.

            However, when greed becomes the focus
            and one needs to churn out books, for the
            new members, in order to makeup for lost
            time, then ethics get placed on the back
            burner. And, Paul had a track record for
            embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
            pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
            was doing his lying and self-promotion
            about himself and his travels at age 27,
            in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
            while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
            to have made a trip to India. HK states that
            PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
            trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
            (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
            own research into these dates! Klemp just
            didn't see that he provided the dates that
            prove that Twit was lying about meeting
            Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
            LOL!

            Prometheus

            paulji_teen wrote:

            This topic seems to keep coming up...

            I can only speak to my own experience.
            In the 1960s in my first experience
            writing papers, in school I was taught
            one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
            By the time I hit high school, the rules
            for this had slightly changed. By university,
            there were even more rules related to
            without giving credit, etc.

            I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
            shifting, or, as students we were just
            getting more clarity from professors.

            Paul may have thought it was okay to
            list short passages. What I don't know --
            are you finding like full pages, or full
            chapters, that word for word are identical?

            Secondly, is there a possibility that when
            Illuminated Way Press went to print they
            didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
            would have anchored these passages?

            Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
            on the earlier works, so he didn't think
            to footnote passages?

            Today's research writers, I think, are
            more careful about plagiarism as there
            are more lawsuits and more legal and
            collegiate focus on educating writers about
            plagiarism.

            As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
            first. One of my areas of interest is
            tracking current plagiarism in media
            and journalism - it is rampant! The
            disregard for fact-checking, and just
            recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
            Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
            pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
            to do things, as well - and it just carried
            over into the Eck writings? I don't
            know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.

            My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
            coming through -- we've all grown
            up with plagiarism. (Think about how
            many times your parents told you
            something that probably has been
            recited for generations? ) I'm not so
            ready to "shoot the messenger".
            Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
            positive purpose in the world.
            Maybe a risk at another analogy -
            if you are really thirsty - do you
            really care where the water came
            from, as long as it is safe to drink?

            Paulji_teen
          • prometheus_973
            Hello Etznab and All, I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL and found a lot of information. The following is one source that showed up on this search:
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Etznab and All,
              I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
              and found a lot of information. The following
              is one source that showed up on this search:


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

              Date: June 19, 1980

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.


              etznab@... wrote:
              >
              >
              > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
              > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
              > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
              > they would do with it).
              >
              > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
              > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
              > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
              > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
              > body else should have known whether plagiar-
              > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
              > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
              > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
              > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
              > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
              > president of Eckankar?
              >
              > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
              > and that is why one was the Master and the
              > other the President. What I mean is, the two
              > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
              >
              > Etznab
            • etznab@aol.com
              That was the source I was thinking of. Thanks for posting it. The only problem I have with all of the copying and not giving credit is that the credit (it
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                That was the source I was thinking of.
                Thanks for posting it.

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

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

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

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

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

                Etznab


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

                 






                Hello Etznab and All,

                I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                and found a lot of information. The following

                is one source that showed up on this search:



                Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                former President of Eckankar, one-time

                follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                in 1971:



                Date: June 19, 1980



                My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                and I considered him honest.



                Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                him to believe she was going to leave him

                and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                So when she demanded more money and

                better living, he started to write things and

                copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                copied a large share from them.



                I helped him write the Herb book and went

                to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                so basically much of the material is good

                because it is copied.



                I confronted him [Paul Twitch
                ell] with what

                he had done and his answer was "since the

                author the book said it better than I could

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

                anyone credit as to where he got it.



                As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                I don't think that a Master would divorce

                his wife and seek many other female companions.



                Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.



                etznab@... wrote:

                >

                >

                > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar

                > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in

                > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what

                > they would do with it).

                >

                > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection

                > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?

                > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read

                > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-

                > body else should have known whether plagiar-

                > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether

                > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of

                > other authors. What was Bluth's position in

                > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s

                > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first

                > president of Eckankar?

                >

                > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together

                > and that is why one was the Master and the

                > other the President. W
                hat I mean is, the two

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

                >

                > Etznab
              • prometheus_973
                Hello All, Here s more that I found after I GOOGLED DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL. THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS Translation and Successorship John Paul Twitchell
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello All,
                  Here's more that I found after I GOOGLED
                  DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL.


                  THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS

                  Translation and Successorship


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

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

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


                  The Controversial "Five Year Plan"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  The Advent of Darwin Gross

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

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

                  The Eckankar News Release reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

                  Post-Twitchellian Eckankar

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

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

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

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

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

                  The Third Living Eck Master: Harold Klemp

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

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

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

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

                  2. Ibid.

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

                  4. Ibid.

                  5. Ibid., pages 20-21.

                  6. Ibid., page 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


                  Birth and early life

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

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

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

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

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


                  Role in Eckankar

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


                  Death

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

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


                  prometheus wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello Etznab and All,
                  > I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
                  > and found a lot of information. The following
                  > is one source that showed up on this search:
                  >
                  >
                  > Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,
                  > former President of Eckankar, one-time
                  > follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's
                  > personal doctor when the Eck leader died
                  > in 1971:
                  >
                  > Date: June 19, 1980
                  >
                  > My wife and I opened the first Eck class
                  > in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul
                  > [Twitchell] many times and was the main
                  > speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.
                  > Paul was a sincere student in the beginning
                  > and I considered him honest.
                  >
                  > Problems between him and his wife Gail led
                  > him to believe she was going to leave him
                  > and he desperately wanted to keep her.
                  >
                  > So when she demanded more money and
                  > better living, he started to write things and
                  > copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]
                  > borrowed my books on Radha Soami and
                  > copied a large share from them.
                  >
                  > I helped him write the Herb book and went
                  > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,
                  > so basically much of the material is good
                  > because it is copied.
                  >
                  > I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what
                  > he had done and his answer was "since the
                  > author the book said it better than I could
                  > I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave
                  > anyone credit as to where he got it.
                  >
                  > As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,
                  > my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.
                  > I don't think that a Master would divorce
                  > his wife and seek many other female companions.
                  >
                  > Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                  >
                  >
                  > etznab@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
                  > > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
                  > > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
                  > > they would do with it).
                  > >
                  > > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
                  > > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
                  > > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
                  > > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
                  > > body else should have known whether plagiar-
                  > > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
                  > > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
                  > > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
                  > > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
                  > > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
                  > > president of Eckankar?
                  > >
                  > > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
                  > > and that is why one was the Master and the
                  > > other the President. What I mean is, the two
                  > > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
                  > >
                  > > Etznab
                  >
                • prometheus_973
                  Hello Etznab and All, I was thinking about this myself and about how Klemp and company use the excuse that it all came/comes from the ECK. Words are words and
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 5, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Etznab and All,
                    I was thinking about this myself and
                    about how Klemp and company use
                    the excuse that it all came/comes
                    from the ECK. Words are words and
                    they are there for everyone to use.
                    And, every invention was already
                    created (and simply needs to be
                    manifested) and is recorded in the
                    Astral Library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Prometheus


                    etznab wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Etznab


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

                    Â






                    Hello Etznab and All,

                    I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                    and found a lot of information. The following

                    is one source that showed up on this search:



                    Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                    former President of Eckankar, one-time

                    follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                    personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                    in 1971:



                    Date: June 19, 1980



                    My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                    in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                    [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                    speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                    Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                    and I considered him honest.



                    Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                    him to believe she was going to leave him

                    and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                    So when she demanded more money and

                    better living, he started to write things and

                    copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                    borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                    copied a large share from them.



                    I helped him write the Herb book and went

                    to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                    so basically much of the material is good

                    because it is copied.



                    I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                    he had done and his answer was "since the

                    author the book said it better than I could

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

                    anyone credit as to where he got it.



                    As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                    I don't think that a Master would divorce

                    his wife and seek many other female companions.



                    Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                  • paulji_teen
                    Open comments: (and this doesn t apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.) Yikes????! I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads for
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.)

                      Yikes????!

                      I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads for where Paul did his research or other past details (setting aside the plagiarism issue)as it helps anchor the history for Eckankar. I don't know why EIO doesn't just bring this out - this might be where you could help - merge both - it's interesting history and the path likely would be stronger on the other side of all this coming out. It would 'clean up the foundation' of Eckankar - or whatever you want to call the teachings which have been brought out by many masters.

                      Personally, I'm not concerned what vocabulary Paul wanted to use. One of the first things I did when I went to an international university was to ask the students who spoke Arabic, or Pushtu, or knew Sanskrit or were Sufis for insight into the Eck vocabulary. I loved learning about the source of the words and how they directly translated the words. For instance in Hinduism there (I'm not good on the spelling here) "Eckumkar"? The words Paul created or chose just helped "brand" Eckankar. Paul was coming from a business model - not that of a church.

                      My bigger concern is asking you...

                      1)What is it - "costing you" - to hold on to your "attitude" - where you are 'at' on all this?

                      2) How are you - "benefiting" - by holding on to where you are at on all this?

                      3) Do you feel you are now in a competition with EIO and the path?


                      It's a rhetorical question. Not looking for an answer.

                      I'm hearing in some comments, something I sometimes do. My "winning formula" at times as an investigative researcher, is that I can slip into "righteous" /"smug" mode and instead of helping people learn something new and important, I sometimes cross the line and can sound bitter, or put people off...certainly not a way to 'win' people's insight, or consideration, or gain followers for my information. This is sort of mixed in of like a habit and complaint. (Ex: "here EIO goes again, blah, blah, blah..." and "why can't HK just do "x"?!)

                      On any life situations like this, I'm getting better at catching myself and seeing - am I just being 'righteous'? Am I just whining and acting out like a 5-year-old who won't give up harping on something? Am I slipping from 'coming from love' to 'coming from being a brat'?

                      I've had to learn to take a big step back and see that I don't have all the information, and I likely have human blindspots, and if I had more information (answers to questions I wouldn't think to even ask yet), maybe, just maybe I would see things differently.

                      I am asking an open question and kindly - "what are your goals here?" You all are providing a lot of great historical information, so if your goal is to inform, you are doing a great job....but, to me, a couple of posters are starting to land as 1) angry and bitter vs. neutral about discussing "what was and is", 2)will you feel you have achieved a victory of sorts if more people leave after you have 'exposed' the information? 3) is there room for others to draw a different conclusion from their experiences while members, or after reading your information? Are you unattached to the outcome? Do you 'care' if some readers leave Eckankar, while others may elect to stay, and others continue to 'fence-sit'? Is there room for 'all' in this forum?

                      I only know what I am reading from you...just saying some people's emotions are leading ahead of the facts in these past postings. Maybe I am the only one willing to say something here. To me, some people are crossing the 'line' perhaps? yes? in straying away from the sub-topic issue of plagiarism and discussing the more primary topic of history (fact), to now "attacking" Gail and Paul for their relationship or other (opinion) reasons. Picking on their relationship, to me, is coming down to a gossip level with neither of them here to comment - and is it even our 'business' why they got together?

                      As far as I know, neither did anything considered illegal at that time by the people in a position to do something about it - and - if the plagiarism was a copyright issue, at the time, were any civil suits filed for this? So, if the original writers didn't care, or their estate -holdes didn't care, maybe it is possible that we can all let it go as well? Then, we can focus on the rich history, from even the other sources. It's sort of like, if you catch your neighbour's spouse stepping out on their spouse - then learn they have an open relationship - are you going to gossip about the cheating spouse? Is that spouse 'cheating' if the other spouse doesn't care? Thus my point with plagiarism - if the writers, or their estate-holders didn't care enough to file a civil suit or complaint, should we be 'judging this'?
                      (and if you are aware of a lawsuit for this, post it; I think there were only rumours that Kirpal wasn't 'happy' about Tiger's Fang...)

                      Just asking, if it feels 'right' - please, all of us, let's take a giant step back and get some perspective on our writing. The forum may be pushing people away who would greatly benefit from all the hard work in posting that has gone on here, and the history in the files.

                      At the risk of paraphrasing Gail from one of her talks - she mentioned before speaking Paul had trained her to think: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? Before speaking her mind. (Hindu Kush Mountain Boys + 1 did a song about it, as well) Thus, do we know the truth about their relationship? Is it necessary to even concern ourselves with it? Is it kind to attack Gail? (Paul might be a little more fair game since he is gone now, but only as far as his delivery of the creation of Eckankar.)

                      Like I said, I've certainly "done this, too" - and I've made requests of my friends to 'call me on it' when I go in this direction of landing as 'righteous', so I can back off and start recognizing it...and it has helped me to spot it in others, now, too.

                      Anyway, for some of you this will "fit" and others may feel I am talking about you, when I am not. Still others, hopefully will see themselves and take my suggestions to heart.

                      Can we focus on the history here - Paul, Path of the Masters, Sufism, wherever it all came from? To me, this is the interesting part. I want to learn the history, not the gossip.

                      Kindly,

                      Paulji_teen

                      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
                      > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
                      > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
                      > they would do with it).
                      >
                      > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
                      > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
                      > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
                      > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
                      > body else should have known whether plagiar-
                      > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
                      > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
                      > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
                      > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
                      > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
                      > president of Eckankar?
                      >
                      > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
                      > and that is why one was the Master and the
                      > other the President. What I mean is, the two
                      > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
                      >
                      > Etznab
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                      > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 12:21 pm
                      > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta"
                      > Creation in 1969
                      >
                      > Â
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
                      >
                      > Mahanta event and recalled that
                      >
                      > Twitchell was having some trouble
                      >
                      > with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
                      >
                      > this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
                      >
                      > Year Plan where he was going to hand
                      >
                      > over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
                      >
                      > in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
                      >
                      > to take root and gr
                      > ow Paul changed
                      >
                      > his mind about handing it over. Paul
                      >
                      > shared his new plans and the change
                      >
                      > outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
                      >
                      > who thought they were next in-line
                      >
                      > and would be taking over. They felt
                      >
                      > betrayed.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Add this internal EK conflict to the
                      >
                      > John-Rogers problems, (and competition
                      >
                      > with other groups), to the negative
                      >
                      > comments coming from the U.S. reps
                      >
                      > of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
                      >
                      > group and voila'!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > PT now had the reasons and need
                      >
                      > to create the title of "Mahanta" that
                      >
                      > gave him complete control and, thus,
                      >
                      > placed himself heads above all others.
                      >
                      > This title and its definition he created
                      >
                      > made PT the King of the Hill. No one
                      >
                      > could challenge or question his decisions
                      >
                      > since they didn't have his divine powers
                      >
                      > or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
                      >
                      > known to mankind!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > How dare anyone to question PT's new
                      >
                      > "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
                      >
                      > himself) since it was something they could
                      >
                      > know nothing about because they are
                      >
                      > of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
                      >
                      > of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
                      >
                      > sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
                      >
                      > has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
                      >
                      > the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
                      >
                      > tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
                      >
                      > or to recommended materials, it's an easy
                      >
                      > ploy to pull off.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Anyway,=2
                      > 0before Eckankar started to make
                      >
                      > big money Paul was as happy as a clam
                      >
                      > promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
                      >
                      > his views of the "path." However, Paul had
                      >
                      > a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
                      >
                      > support and impress, and she had her needs
                      >
                      > too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
                      >
                      > Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
                      >
                      > scheme where Eckists were members of her
                      >
                      > sales staff.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
                      >
                      > and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
                      >
                      > why I said that this was a pivotal time and
                      >
                      > a complete change of direction for Eckankar.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Prometheus
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                      >
                      > I just had a few more observations
                      >
                      > and wanted to address some previous
                      >
                      > comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Pji Teen:
                      >
                      > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                      >
                      > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                      >
                      > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                      >
                      > would have anchored these passages?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > P-
                      >
                      > I doubt that this happened since there
                      >
                      > are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
                      >
                      > And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
                      >
                      > EK Masters as his "source" rather than
                      >
                      > admit to the truth of his theft.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
                      >
                      > his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
                      >
                      > and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Klemp came up with the Astral Library
                      > 0A
                      > story to explain away the accusations
                      >
                      > of plagiarism. However, he also shot
                      >
                      > himself in the foot by pointing out that
                      >
                      > these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
                      >
                      > than Astral Plane teachings!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Pji Teen:
                      >
                      > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                      >
                      > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                      >
                      > to footnote passages?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > P-
                      >
                      > It's strange that PT would give Bible
                      >
                      > quotes and reference the source in
                      >
                      > the same text. He also did this with
                      >
                      > other writers just as Klemp does. But,
                      >
                      > PT doesn't do this with regard to The
                      >
                      > Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
                      >
                      > pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
                      >
                      > I'm looking in the back of my combined
                      >
                      > Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
                      >
                      > any references! Thus, he'll give it as
                      >
                      > he writes it. Therefore, it was an
                      >
                      > intentional omission when PT didn't
                      >
                      > mention "The Path of the Masters"
                      >
                      > when he uses quotes from this book.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > However, I must say that Twit was sly,
                      >
                      > but those are the credentials of a con-
                      >
                      > man. As I pointed out in the beginning
                      >
                      > of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
                      >
                      > a quote word for word in his "The Far
                      >
                      > Country" page 131. Here's a partial
                      >
                      > quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
                      >
                      > is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
                      >
                      > has repeated it in substance." Now,
                      >
                      > it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
                      >
                      > paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
                      >
                      > and
                      > , thus, didn't quote them. However,
                      >
                      > Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
                      >
                      > and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
                      >
                      > style and his creativity! This is unethical!
                      >
                      > Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
                      >
                      > ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
                      >
                      > longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
                      >
                      > benefit of the doubt since it is all based
                      >
                      > upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
                      >
                      > and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
                      >
                      > That's a distortion of other religious
                      >
                      > teachings including Ruhani Satsang
                      >
                      > and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
                      >
                      > give this "source." The excuse/con is
                      >
                      > that It either came from the "Astral
                      >
                      > Library" or it came from the ECK.
                      >
                      > Catch-22!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Pji Teen:
                      >
                      > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                      >
                      > first. One of my areas of interest is
                      >
                      > tracking current plagiarism in media
                      >
                      > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                      >
                      > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                      >
                      > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                      >
                      > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                      >
                      > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                      >
                      > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                      >
                      > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                      >
                      > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > P-
                      >
                      > IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
                      >
                      > stretch of the imagination. He was
                      >
                      > a hack. Most of the things that he
                      >
                      > wrote didn't require research into
                      >
                      > many facts and when it did Twit
                      >
                      > would often make up his
                      > own.
                      >
                      > Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
                      >
                      > had to do with recycling old stories
                      >
                      > and making some minor changes
                      >
                      > to disguise them. And, yes, this did
                      >
                      > carry over to his ECKankar writings.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Pji Teen:
                      >
                      > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                      >
                      > coming through -- we've all grown
                      >
                      > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                      >
                      > many times your parents told you
                      >
                      > something that probably has been
                      >
                      > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                      >
                      > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                      >
                      > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                      >
                      > positive purpose in the world.
                      >
                      > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                      >
                      > if you are really thirsty - do you
                      >
                      > really care where the water came
                      >
                      > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > P-
                      >
                      > I think most of our parents told us
                      >
                      > recycled stories about Santa Claus
                      >
                      > and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
                      >
                      > tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
                      >
                      > for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
                      >
                      > is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
                      >
                      > is safe to drink? Some impurities
                      >
                      > are tasteless and show up over time.
                      >
                      > As I pointed out once before... the
                      >
                      > big pivot point for Twitchell was
                      >
                      > when he created the "Mahanta"
                      >
                      > title for himself in January 1969.
                      >
                      > This is when PT placed an enormous
                      >
                      > and unattainable gap between
                      >
                      > himself and his followers. He did
                      >
                      > this in order to out-do John-
                      >
                      > Rogers (a follower who left EK
                      >
                      > and started20his own religion by
                      >
                      > using PT's discourses etc.). And,
                      >
                      > Twit wanted to place himself heads
                      >
                      > above every other "Master" and/or
                      >
                      > critic (including Kirpal) by placing
                      >
                      > himself in a position beyond reproach.
                      >
                      > After all, how can anyone criticize,
                      >
                      > even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
                      >
                      > having the highest "God-Knowledge?"
                      >
                      > More Catch-22!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Prometheus
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ****
                      >
                      > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                      >
                      > Interesting comments! I can recall
                      >
                      > that someone wrote that Paul was
                      >
                      > told by Orion Press not to submit
                      >
                      > anymore articles to them because
                      >
                      > he had been caught plagiarizing.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Now, this whole episode took place
                      >
                      > long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
                      >
                      > Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
                      >
                      > plagiarizing was both an unethical
                      >
                      > practice and an illegal behaviour.
                      >
                      > The magazine could have been sued
                      >
                      > and could have lost all credibility
                      >
                      > with their readers by having to place
                      >
                      > retractions in future editions.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > However, this incident didn't seem
                      >
                      > to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
                      >
                      > help but lie and deceive with another's
                      >
                      > words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
                      >
                      > for comparison, and there are more in
                      >
                      > the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
                      >
                      > also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
                      >
                      > of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
                      >
                      > copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
                      >
                      > from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
                      >
                      >
                      > Masters" as his handbook to create his
                      >
                      > "new" religious sect... Eckankar.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The thing that Paul did, creating a new
                      >
                      > sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
                      >
                      > for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
                      >
                      > Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
                      >
                      > a successor, or there is a disagreement
                      >
                      > with the choice (another has more
                      >
                      > followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
                      >
                      > is formed. This is how new (major)
                      >
                      > religions are created too! Local, Christian,
                      >
                      > Churches do the same! However, Paul,
                      >
                      > Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
                      >
                      > the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
                      >
                      > guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
                      >
                      > was one standard and there are others for
                      >
                      > writers and researchers. When I got into
                      >
                      > research papers for my major the standards
                      >
                      > became much more stringent on footnoting
                      >
                      > and everything else.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > However, many of these standards concerning
                      >
                      > morals and ethics have been around for decades.
                      >
                      > Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
                      >
                      > should have known about these ethical standards
                      >
                      > since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
                      >
                      > a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
                      >
                      > Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
                      >
                      > librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
                      >
                      > command. Gail certainly knew something about
                      >
                      > ethics and plagiarism.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > However, when greed becomes the focus
                      >
                      >
                      > and one needs to churn out books, for the
                      >
                      > new members, in order to makeup for lost
                      >
                      > time, then ethics get placed on the back
                      >
                      > burner. And, Paul had a track record for
                      >
                      > embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
                      >
                      > pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
                      >
                      > was doing his lying and self-promotion
                      >
                      > about himself and his travels at age 27,
                      >
                      > in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
                      >
                      > while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
                      >
                      > to have made a trip to India. HK states that
                      >
                      > PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
                      >
                      > trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
                      >
                      > (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
                      >
                      > own research into these dates! Klemp just
                      >
                      > didn't see that he provided the dates that
                      >
                      > prove that Twit was lying about meeting
                      >
                      > Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
                      >
                      > LOL!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Prometheus
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > paulji_teen wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > This topic seems to keep coming up...
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I can only speak to my own experience.
                      >
                      > In the 1960s in my first experience
                      >
                      > writing papers, in school I was taught
                      >
                      > one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
                      >
                      > By the time I hit high school, the rules
                      >
                      > for this had slightly changed. By university,
                      >
                      > there were even more rules related to
                      >
                      > without giving credit, etc.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
                      >
                      > shifting, or, as students we were just
                      >
                      > getting more clarity fro
                      > m professors.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Paul may have thought it was okay to
                      >
                      > list short passages. What I don't know --
                      >
                      > are you finding like full pages, or full
                      >
                      > chapters, that word for word are identical?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                      >
                      > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                      >
                      > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                      >
                      > would have anchored these passages?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                      >
                      > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                      >
                      > to footnote passages?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Today's research writers, I think, are
                      >
                      > more careful about plagiarism as there
                      >
                      > are more lawsuits and more legal and
                      >
                      > collegiate focus on educating writers about
                      >
                      > plagiarism.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                      >
                      > first. One of my areas of interest is
                      >
                      > tracking current plagiarism in media
                      >
                      > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                      >
                      > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                      >
                      > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                      >
                      > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                      >
                      > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                      >
                      > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                      >
                      > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                      >
                      > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                      >
                      > coming through -- we've all grown
                      >
                      > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                      >
                      > many times your parents told you
                      >
                      > something that probably has been
                      >
                      > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                      > =0
                      > A
                      > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                      >
                      > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                      >
                      > positive purpose in the world.
                      >
                      > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                      >
                      > if you are really thirsty - do you
                      >
                      > really care where the water came
                      >
                      > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Paulji_teen
                      >
                    • prometheus_973
                      Hello paulji teen and All, For one thing this is an anti-Eckankar site and Eckankar is a religion (cult) vs. a path. And, It s okay if (on the thread) people
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello paulji teen and All,
                        For one thing this is an anti-Eckankar site
                        and Eckankar is a religion (cult) vs. a "path."
                        And, It's okay if (on the thread) people vary
                        off course some with "history." In many ways
                        it's all connected. Dr. Bluth's letter confirms
                        what I've heard about Gail and this isn't gossip
                        it's an analysis with personal observation and
                        is based upon many factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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


                        Prometheus


                        paulji_teen wrote:

                        Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all -
                        the few doing it, should see themselves.)

                        Yikes????!

                        I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads
                        for where Paul did his research or other past details
                        (setting aside the plagiarism issue)as it helps
                        anchor the history for Eckankar. I don't know why
                        EIO doesn't just bring this out - this might be where
                        you could help - merge both - it's interesting history
                        and the path likely would be stronger on the other
                        side of all this coming out. It would 'clean up the
                        foundation' of Eckankar - or whatever you want to
                        call the teachings which have been brought out by
                        many masters.

                        Personally, I'm not concerned what vocabulary Paul
                        wanted to use. One of the first things I did when
                        I went to an international university was to ask the
                        students who spoke Arabic, or Pushtu, or knew
                        Sanskrit or were Sufis for insight into the Eck
                        vocabulary. I loved learning about the source of
                        the words and how they directly translated the
                        words. For instance in Hinduism there (I'm not
                        good on the spelling here) "Eckumkar"? The words
                        Paul created or chose just helped "brand" Eckankar.
                        Paul was coming from a business model - not that
                        of a church.

                        My bigger concern is asking you...

                        1)What is it - "costing you" - to hold on to
                        your "attitude" - where you are 'at' on all this?

                        2) How are you - "benefiting" - by holding
                        on to where you are at on all this?

                        3) Do you feel you are now in a competition
                        with EIO and the path?


                        It's a rhetorical question. Not looking for an answer.

                        I'm hearing in some comments, something
                        I sometimes do. My "winning formula" at
                        times as an investigative researcher, is that
                        I can slip into "righteous" / "smug" mode and
                        instead of helping people learn something
                        new and important, I sometimes cross the
                        line and can sound bitter, or put people off...
                        certainly not a way to 'win' people's insight,
                        or consideration, or gain followers for my
                        information. This is sort of mixed in of like
                        a habit and complaint. (Ex: "here EIO goes
                        again, blah, blah, blah..." and "why can't HK
                        just do "x"?!)

                        On any life situations like this, I'm getting
                        better at catching myself and seeing - am
                        I just being 'righteous'? Am I just whining
                        and acting out like a 5-year-old who won't
                        give up harping on something? Am I slipping
                        from 'coming from love' to 'coming from being
                        a brat'?

                        I've had to learn to take a big step back and
                        see that I don't have all the information, and
                        I likely have human blindspots, and if I had
                        more information (answers to questions
                        I wouldn't think to even ask yet), maybe, just
                        maybe I would see things differently.

                        I am asking an open question and kindly -
                        "what are your goals here?" You all
                        are providing a lot of great historical
                        information, so if your goal is to
                        inform, you are doing a great job....but,
                        to me, a couple of posters are starting to
                        land as

                        1) angry and bitter vs. neutral about discussing
                        "what was and is",

                        2)will you feel you have achieved a victory
                        of sorts if more people leave after you have
                        'exposed' the information?

                        3) is there room for others to draw a different
                        conclusion from their experiences while members,
                        or after reading your information?

                        Are you unattached to the outcome?

                        Do you 'care' if some readers leave Eckankar,
                        while others may elect to stay, and others continue
                        to 'fence-sit'?

                        Is there room for 'all' in this forum?

                        I only know what I am reading from you...
                        just saying some people's emotions are
                        leading ahead of the facts in these past
                        postings. Maybe I am the only one willing
                        to say something here.

                        To me, some people are crossing the 'line'
                        perhaps? yes?

                        in straying away from the sub-topic issue
                        of plagiarism and discussing the more primary
                        topic of history (fact), to now "attacking" Gail
                        and Paul for their relationship or other (opinion)
                        reasons.

                        Picking on their relationship, to me, is coming
                        down to a gossip level with neither of them here
                        to comment - and is it even our 'business' why
                        they got together?

                        As far as I know, neither did anything
                        considered illegal at that time by the
                        people in a position to do something
                        about it - and - if the plagiarism was a
                        copyright issue, at the time, were any
                        civil suits filed for this?

                        So, if the original writers didn't care,
                        or their estate -holdes didn't care,
                        maybe it is possible that we can all
                        let it go as well?

                        Then, we can focus on the rich
                        history, from even the other sources.
                        It's sort of like, if you catch your
                        neighbour's spouse stepping out
                        on their spouse - then learn they
                        have an open relationship - are you
                        going to gossip about the cheating
                        spouse?

                        Is that spouse 'cheating' if the other
                        spouse doesn't care?

                        Thus my point with plagiarism - if
                        the writers, or their estate-holders
                        didn't care enough to file a civil suit or
                        complaint, should we be 'judging this'?

                        (and if you are aware of a lawsuit for this,
                        post it; I think there were only rumours
                        that Kirpal wasn't 'happy' about Tiger's Fang...)

                        Just asking, if it feels 'right' - please,
                        all of us, let's take a giant step back
                        and get some perspective on our writing.
                        The forum may be pushing people
                        away who would greatly benefit from
                        all the hard work in posting that has
                        gone on here, and the history in the files.

                        At the risk of paraphrasing Gail from one
                        of her talks - she mentioned before
                        speaking Paul had trained her to think:
                        Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?

                        Before speaking her mind. (Hindu Kush
                        Mountain Boys + 1 did a song about it, as
                        well) Thus, do we know the truth about
                        their relationship?

                        Is it necessary to even concern ourselves
                        with it?

                        Is it kind to attack Gail?
                        (Paul might be a little more fair game
                        since he is gone now, but only as far
                        as his delivery of the creation of Eckankar.)

                        Like I said, I've certainly "done this, too" -
                        and I've made requests of my friends to
                        'call me on it' when I go in this direction
                        of landing as 'righteous', so I can back
                        off and start recognizing it...and it has
                        helped me to spot it in others, now, too.

                        Anyway, for some of you this will "fit"
                        and others may feel I am talking about
                        you, when I am not. Still others, hopefully
                        will see themselves and take my suggestions
                        to heart.

                        Can we focus on the history here - Paul,
                        Path of the Masters, Sufism, wherever
                        it all came from?

                        To me, this is the interesting part. I want
                        to learn the history, not the gossip.

                        Kindly,

                        Paulji_teen

                        etznab@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
                        > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
                        > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
                        > they would do with it).
                        >
                        > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
                        > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
                        > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
                        > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
                        > body else should have known whether plagiar-
                        > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
                        > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
                        > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
                        > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
                        > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
                        > president of Eckankar?
                        >
                        > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
                        > and that is why one was the Master and the
                        > other the President. What I mean is, the two
                        > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
                        >
                        > Etznab

                        prometheus wrote:
                        >
                        > I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
                        >
                        > Mahanta event and recalled that
                        >
                        > Twitchell was having some trouble
                        >
                        > with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
                        >
                        > this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
                        >
                        > Year Plan where he was going to hand
                        >
                        > over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
                        >
                        > in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
                        >
                        > to take root and gr
                        > ow Paul changed
                        >
                        > his mind about handing it over. Paul
                        >
                        > shared his new plans and the change
                        >
                        > outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
                        >
                        > who thought they were next in-line
                        >
                        > and would be taking over. They felt
                        >
                        > betrayed.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Add this internal EK conflict to the
                        >
                        > John-Rogers problems, (and competition
                        >
                        > with other groups), to the negative
                        >
                        > comments coming from the U.S. reps
                        >
                        > of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
                        >
                        > group and voila'!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > PT now had the reasons and need
                        >
                        > to create the title of "Mahanta" that
                        >
                        > gave him complete control and, thus,
                        >
                        > placed himself heads above all others.
                        >
                        > This title and its definition he created
                        >
                        > made PT the King of the Hill. No one
                        >
                        > could challenge or question his decisions
                        >
                        > since they didn't have his divine powers
                        >
                        > or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
                        >
                        > known to mankind!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > How dare anyone to question PT's new
                        >
                        > "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
                        >
                        > himself) since it was something they could
                        >
                        > know nothing about because they are
                        >
                        > of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
                        >
                        > of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
                        >
                        > sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
                        >
                        > has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
                        >
                        > the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
                        >
                        > tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
                        >
                        > or to recommended materials, it's an easy
                        >
                        > ploy to pull off.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Anyway, before Eckankar started to make
                        >
                        > big money Paul was as happy as a clam
                        >
                        > promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
                        >
                        > his views of the "path." However, Paul had
                        >
                        > a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
                        >
                        > support and impress, and she had her needs
                        >
                        > too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
                        >
                        > Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
                        >
                        > scheme where Eckists were members of her
                        >
                        > sales staff.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
                        >
                        > and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
                        >
                        > why I said that this was a pivotal time and
                        >
                        > a complete change of direction for Eckankar.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Prometheus
                        >
                      • etznab@aol.com
                        Do you have a link to online version of The Path of the Masters? I thought there was one posted here recently, but I can t seem to find where I saved it in my
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Do you have a link to online version of The
                          Path of the Masters? I thought there was one
                          posted here recently, but I can't seem to find
                          where I saved it in my favorites folder.

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

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

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

                          Etznab



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

                           






                          Hello All,

                          Here's more that I found after I GOOGLED

                          DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL.



                          THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS



                          Translation and Successorship



                          John Paul Twitchell died on September 17, 1971,

                          of arteriosclerotic heart disease. He "translated"

                          (Eck terminology for death) at approximately

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

                          scheduled to give a lecture on Eckankar.



                          [Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,

                          Ohio Department of Health,
                          Division of Vital Statistics.]



                          As with his birth, several stories have

                          cropped up concerning Twitchell's unexpected

                          death (translation). A few Eckists, including

                          Jim Peebles, believed that he was poisoned

                          to death; some state it was in Spain, others

                          claim in Czechoslovakia. No one seems quite

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

                          one-time President of Eckankar, reported seeing

                          Twitchell's soul carried out in a celestial cloud

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

                          instead that Twitchell had disobeyed the orders

                          of the Vairagi Masters and was carried away in

                          chains. Whichever story one believes--even if

                          one belongs to Eckankar--the fact remains that

                          an autopsy was performed and the coroner's findings

                          were that Twitchell died of a heart attack.

                          [Ibid.]



                          The Controversial "Five Year Plan"



                          When Twitchell first took over as the

                          "Living Eck Master" in 1965, he stated at

                          the very outset that he had been given a

                          "five-year" mission, and that after those

                          five years a new master would be appointed.

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

                          page 19.]



                          Yet when 1970 came around (five years

                          after his proposed statement), Twitchell told

                          his followers at the Fourth World-Wide Eckankar

                          Seminar that he had been given a five-year

                          extension by the Highest Lord, the Sugmad,



                          because the second Mahanta had failed his

                          preliminary testing. Therefore, he would continue

                          as the Mahanta until the third one was ready.

                          [Ibid.]



                          Nichols and Albrecht in their paper,

                          "Eckankar: The Ancient Science of Deception,"

                          have researched extensively Twitchell's self-

                          proposed "five-year plan." They consider it

                          to be a crucial point of controversy within

                          Eckankar. Below is the essence of their study.



                          By January 1971, the dispute within Eckankar

                          had reached such proportions, Twitchell had

                          to devote his entire letter of that month to

                          quelling the disturbance:



                          "There is a lot of idle chatter going on by

                          some chelas in Eck who make the unusual

                          claims that they are going to be the next

                          Mahanta, the Living Eck Master. But whatever

                          you hear about this can be taken with a grain

                          of salt, as the old expression goes it simply

                          isn't true."



                          Dr. Bluth attributes this change of plan

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

                          Bluth that he was training a child somewhere

                          on the West Coast to be the next Mahanta.

                          A lot of members of Eck began leaving the

                          fold at this time sensing a betrayal. Paul

                          did not quell the disturbance.



                          Even in May 1971, the storm was still raging.

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

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

                          addressed to the chelas, that once again states

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

                          ready for fifteen years.



                          Paul Twitchell never lived to carry out his five-year

                          extension that had been granted to him by the Order

                          of Vairagi, the ascended Eck Masters. He never lived

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

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



                          The Advent of Darwin Gross



                          "The next Mahanta is about fifteen years away.

                          He is now in training but where he is nobody

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

                          [--Paul Twitchell (January 1971)]

                          [Ibid., page 20.]



                          Sri Darwin Gross, Portland, Oregon Eck Mahadis,

                          and professional engineer was announced at

                          the Fifth World-Wide Seminar of Eckankar, to

                          be the new living Eck Master.

                          [Eckankar News Release (October 1971)]



                          The Eckankar News Release reads:



                          "The announcement was made before

                          an assembly of over a thousand followers

                          at the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross

                          known in spiritual circles as Dap Ren succeeds

                          Paul Twitchell, author 30 books, master and

                          founder of the present, world-wide Eckankar

                          movement who died (translated) in Cincinnati

                          Sept. 17, 1971."



                          It came as a surprise and a shock to many

                          Eckists when Paul Twitchell died suddenly

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

                          followers had expected their master to live

                          at least another five (if not fifteen) years.

                          It came as a bigger surprise and shock to

                          some of those same Eckists when Darwin

                          Gross was proclaimed the new "Living Eck

                          Master" a month after Twitchell's demise.

                          Shortly thereafter, several esteemed Eckists,

                          including Dr. Bluth (President of Eckankar

                          and Paul's personal doctor) and Edward Pecen

                          (Paul's personal bodyguard and confidante),

                          left Eckankar disclaiming Darwin Gross and

                          Gail Atkinson. [Edward Pecen, personal interview

                          with the author, November 1977.]



                          Part of the reason behind the astonishment

                          of many Eckists over the advent of Darwin Gross

                          was because he had been in Eckankar only since

                          1969. Nichols and Albrecht retell the controversy:



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

                          from Portland, Oregon, where Gross was immediately

                          granted a fifth initiation and briefed extensively for

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

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

                          large exodus from the movement at the time, including

                          Dr. Bluth and Dr. Wiggelsworth."



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

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

                          body and told her that Darwin Gross was to be his

                          successor. There was no more mention of20the child

                          that Twitchell supposedly had been training."



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

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



                          "Here one should remember that Paul

                          left no word as to who his successor should

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

                          interested in Eckankar in 1969, thus he was

                          an Eck Chela for less than a complete two

                          years at the time he was declared to be the

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

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





                          Darwin Gross was revealed as the new

                          "Living Eck Master" in Las Vegas, when

                          Gail Atkinson Twitchell, Paul's widow,

                          walked over to Darwin and presented him

                          with a blue carnation. Shortly thereafter,

                          to the bewilderment of a number of Eckists,

                          Gail and Darwin were married. However,

                          their marriage was short-lived. In early 1978,

                          Darwin sent a personal letter to a every Eck

                          chela in the world informing them that he

                          and Gail were getting divorced. A couple of

                          years later, Darwin got remarried, but it lasted

                          only a few months and he got the marriage

                          annulled. The ramifications of Darwin's divorce,

                          remarriage, and annulment on the membership

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

                          Yet, it can be presumed by the continued growth

                          of Eckankar in the United States that its ultimate


                          impact, like Darwin and Gail's marriage, was

                          nominal.



                          Gail Atkinson, according to the personal

                          letter sent to all Eckists, is still a member

                          of Eckankar and will continue to support the

                          activities of the Eck Master and the group.



                          Post-Twitchellian Eckankar



                          I have used the term "post-Twitchellian"

                          because I think it best emphasizes the crucial

                          importance of Paul Twitchell on Eckankar.



                          The growth of Eckankar, since of the death

                          of its founder, Paul Twitchell, and the advent

                          of Darwin Gross, has been remarkable. Although

                          Darwin has only authored a few books (including

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

                          compared to Twitchell's enormous output (over

                          sixty texts), Eckankar has increased its membership

                          almost triple.



                          The exact figures have not, as of yet,

                          been released by Eckankar. But in 1970

                          the membership was reported not to exceed

                          twenty-thousand. In 1991 it is estimated

                          that the number is somewhere between

                          forty-thousand and sixty-thousand core

                          members.



                          Since Darwin's acceptance of the mantleship,

                          Eckankar established its Headquarters in Menlo

                          Park--an impressive million dollar building.

                          [Now under the leadership of Harold Klemp,

                          the central headquarters is in Minneapolis,

                          Minnesota.] Yet the most enterprising of Darwin's

                          projects was to build a20spiritual center in Sedona,

                          Arizona. The project, however, had to be abandoned

                          due to lack of finances and a devastating lawsuit

                          taken against Eckankar over property rights in

                          the Sedona area.



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

                          1980) for more on the lawsuit taken over

                          Eckankar's land holdings.]



                          The Third Living Eck Master: Harold Klemp



                          In October of 1981, Darwin Gross passed

                          on the mantleship of Eckankar to Harold

                          Klemp, a long-standing Eckist. The event

                          took place in Los Angeles, California, at the

                          World-Wide Seminar. For many members,

                          the announcement came as an abrupt transition.

                          Apparently, to ease in the appointment of

                          Harold Klemp, Darwin Gross agreed to work

                          at the International Office in Menlo Park in

                          an advisory capacity. But all did not go well

                          and in 1983 a severe break occurred between

                          Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp, which led

                          to Gross' removal and subsequent excommunication

                          from the fold.



                          [See Part Five for a detailed examination

                          of this most unusual chapter in Eckankar's

                          history.]



                          Although we have examined briefly Paul

                          Twitchell's life and work up to to his death

                          and the successorship of Darwin Gross in

                          Eckankar, we have not, as of yet, studied

                          the most crucial and controversial aspect

                          of Eckankar: namely, the untold story of

                          Paul20Twitchell. The first two parts have

                          served as an introduction, for what follows

                          is the most intriguing, yet the most disputed,

                          aspect of Twitchell's life and work.



                          NOTES

                          1. Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,

                          Ohio Department of Health, Division of Vital

                          Statistics.



                          2. Ibid.



                          3. Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht,

                          op. cit., page 19.



                          4. Ibid.



                          5. Ibid., pages 20-21.



                          6. Ibid., page 20.



                          7. The Eckankar News Release reads: "The

                          announcement was made before an assembly

                          of over a thousand followers at the Flamingo

                          Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross known in spiritual

                          circles as Dap Ren succeeds Paul Twitchell,

                          author of 30 books, master and founder of

                          the present, world-wide Eckankar movement

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



                          8. Edward Pecen, personal interview with the

                          author, November 1977.



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

                          pages 23-24.



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



                          11. Gail Atkinson, according to the personal letter

                          sent to all Eckists, is still a member of Eckankar

                          and will continue to support the activities of the

                          Eck Master and the group.



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

                          I think it best emphasizes the crucial importance

                          of Paul Twitch
                          ell on Eckankar.



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

                          released by Eckankar. But in 1970 the membership

                          was reported not to exceed twenty-thousand. In

                          the early 1990's it is estimated that the number

                          is anywhere between twenty and forty thousand

                          core members.



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

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

                          land holdings.



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

                          Paul Twitchell (born John Paul Twitchell)

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

                          was an American spiritual writer, author

                          and founder of the group known as Eckankar.

                          He is accepted by the members of that group

                          as the Mahanta, or Living ECK Master of his

                          time. He directed the development of the

                          group through to the time of his death.

                          His spiritual name is believed by Eckists

                          (students of Eckankar) to be Peddar Zaskq.



                          Birth and early life



                          Much of Twitchell's life is shrouded in controversy

                          and uncertainty. His birth date has been disputed;

                          his widow Gail believed he was born in 1922, as

                          evident by his death certificate, but Twitchell himself

                          once claimed his birth year was 1912. Author Ford

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

                          based on census information.[1] The 1910 Census

                          indicates that Twitchell was six months old in April

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

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

                          Paul was probably born in Paducah, Kentucky, although

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



                          In his later life, Twitchell attended Murray State

                          College and Western Kentucky University in the

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

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

                          in the United States Navy during World War II,

                          and became a correspondent for Our Navy after

                          the war. He later went on to become a freelance

                          journalist. [5]



                          He also investigated a number of spiritual movements.

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

                          Church of Absolute Monism, an offshoot of Paramahamsa

                          Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship. He lived on

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

                          periodical, The Mystic Cross. He was asked to leave

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

                          with his first wife.



                          Later that same year, he was initiated into Kirpal

                          Singh into surat shabd yoga. He also became involved

                          in the Church of Scientology, becoming a member

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

                          to achieve the status of clear. [5]



                          In Seattle, he met Gail Atkinson. Twitchell later introduced

                          the woman to Kirpal Singh and later married her. They

                          moved to San Francisco i
                          n 1964, where Twitchell studied

                          surat shabd yoga without the assistance of Kirpal Singh.

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

                          wife, Gail Atkinson. He pursued a spiritual education

                          under the inspiration of Kirpal Singh, but after a postal

                          correspondence, during which Kirpal Singh critiqued

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

                          Twitchell then went on to study surat shabd yoga

                          independent of Kirpal Singh. [5]



                          Role in Eckankar



                          Some people believe it was actually Gail's idea that

                          Twitchell adapt some of his spiritual education into

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

                          in the early 1980s, publicly denouncing Eckankar as

                          an invention, although Twitchell had claimed the religion

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

                          his teachings were new, he eventually referred to them

                          as an ancient science that predated all other major religious

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

                          to Secret Worlds, Twitchell claimed he received aid in

                          uncovering Eckankar from the spirit of a predecessor

                          ECK master, Rebazar Tarzs. After the religion was founded

                          or uncovered, Twitchell then turned to writing for magazines.

                          In that position he gave out spiritual advice, claiming

                          to communicate with God about the problems of those

                          who wrote to him. He also attempted prophecy, predicting

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

                          Johnson would be elected US President for a second time.

                          Many of his answers were concluded with the words

                          "I HAVE SPOKEN!"[10]



                          Death



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

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

                          including the prominent member Louis Bluth, believed

                          his death was necessary; it was claimed Twitchell had

                          defied the ECK masters of the past. Additionally, many

                          Eckists came to question Twitchell's honesty after his

                          death, since he had predicted that he would continue

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

                          death was also problematic because Twitchell did not

                          have a chance to name his successor. His widow Gail

                          eventually selected Darwin Gross whom she later married.

                          According to Gail, Gross was indeed Paul Twitchell's

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

                          endorsement.[11]



                          This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-

                          contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been

                          reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)



                          prometheus wrote:

                          >

                          > Hello Etznab and All,

                          > I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                          > and found a lot of information. The following

                          > is one source that showed up on this search:

                          >

                          >

                          > Excerpted from a
                          letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                          > former President of Eckankar, one-time

                          > follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                          > personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                          > in 1971:

                          >

                          > Date: June 19, 1980

                          >

                          > My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                          > in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                          > [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                          > speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                          > Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                          > and I considered him honest.

                          >

                          > Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                          > him to believe she was going to leave him

                          > and he desperately wanted to keep her.

                          >

                          > So when she demanded more money and

                          > better living, he started to write things and

                          > copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                          > borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                          > copied a large share from them.

                          >

                          > I helped him write the Herb book and went

                          > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                          > so basically much of the material is good

                          > because it is copied.

                          >

                          > I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                          > he had done and his answer was "since the

                          > author the book said it better than I could

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

                          > anyone credit as to where he got20it.

                          >

                          > As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                          > I don't think that a Master would divorce

                          > his wife and seek many other female companions.

                          >

                          > Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.

                          >

                          >

                          > etznab@ wrote:

                          > >

                          > >

                          > > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar

                          > > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in

                          > > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what

                          > > they would do with it).

                          > >

                          > > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection

                          > > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?

                          > > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read

                          > > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-

                          > > body else should have known whether plagiar-

                          > > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether

                          > > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of

                          > > other authors. What was Bluth's position in

                          > > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s

                          > > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first

                          > > president of Eckankar?

                          > >

                          > > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together

                          > > and that is why one was the Master and the

                          > > other the President. What I mean is, the two

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

                          > >

                          > > Etznab

                          >
                        • mishmisha9
                          Holy Cow--what s this all about? I don t really get what your gripe is here concerning a few posts/posters? This site has been active for a few years now, it
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 6, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Holy Cow--what's this all about? I don't really get what
                            your gripe is here concerning a "few" posts/posters? This
                            site has been active for a few years now, it is clearly written
                            in the purpose statement what you can expect to find. It
                            is fairly open to opinions--some back and forth play. But
                            I don't understand what you are bothered by concerning some
                            posts and comments you haven't directly addressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            Mish




                            --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "paulji_teen" <tigeroverflow@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.)
                            >
                            > Yikes????!
                            >
                            > I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads for where Paul did his research or other past details (setting aside the plagiarism issue)as it helps anchor the history for Eckankar. I don't know why EIO doesn't just bring this out - this might be where you could help - merge both - it's interesting history and the path likely would be stronger on the other side of all this coming out. It would 'clean up the foundation' of Eckankar - or whatever you want to call the teachings which have been brought out by many masters.
                            >
                            > Personally, I'm not concerned what vocabulary Paul wanted to use. One of the first things I did when I went to an international university was to ask the students who spoke Arabic, or Pushtu, or knew Sanskrit or were Sufis for insight into the Eck vocabulary. I loved learning about the source of the words and how they directly translated the words. For instance in Hinduism there (I'm not good on the spelling here) "Eckumkar"? The words Paul created or chose just helped "brand" Eckankar. Paul was coming from a business model - not that of a church.
                            >
                            > My bigger concern is asking you...
                            >
                            > 1)What is it - "costing you" - to hold on to your "attitude" - where you are 'at' on all this?
                            >
                            > 2) How are you - "benefiting" - by holding on to where you are at on all this?
                            >
                            > 3) Do you feel you are now in a competition with EIO and the path?
                            >
                            >
                            > It's a rhetorical question. Not looking for an answer.
                            >
                            > I'm hearing in some comments, something I sometimes do. My "winning formula" at times as an investigative researcher, is that I can slip into "righteous" /"smug" mode and instead of helping people learn something new and important, I sometimes cross the line and can sound bitter, or put people off...certainly not a way to 'win' people's insight, or consideration, or gain followers for my information. This is sort of mixed in of like a habit and complaint. (Ex: "here EIO goes again, blah, blah, blah..." and "why can't HK just do "x"?!)
                            >
                            > On any life situations like this, I'm getting better at catching myself and seeing - am I just being 'righteous'? Am I just whining and acting out like a 5-year-old who won't give up harping on something? Am I slipping from 'coming from love' to 'coming from being a brat'?
                            >
                            > I've had to learn to take a big step back and see that I don't have all the information, and I likely have human blindspots, and if I had more information (answers to questions I wouldn't think to even ask yet), maybe, just maybe I would see things differently.
                            >
                            > I am asking an open question and kindly - "what are your goals here?" You all are providing a lot of great historical information, so if your goal is to inform, you are doing a great job....but, to me, a couple of posters are starting to land as 1) angry and bitter vs. neutral about discussing "what was and is", 2)will you feel you have achieved a victory of sorts if more people leave after you have 'exposed' the information? 3) is there room for others to draw a different conclusion from their experiences while members, or after reading your information? Are you unattached to the outcome? Do you 'care' if some readers leave Eckankar, while others may elect to stay, and others continue to 'fence-sit'? Is there room for 'all' in this forum?
                            >
                            > I only know what I am reading from you...just saying some people's emotions are leading ahead of the facts in these past postings. Maybe I am the only one willing to say something here. To me, some people are crossing the 'line' perhaps? yes? in straying away from the sub-topic issue of plagiarism and discussing the more primary topic of history (fact), to now "attacking" Gail and Paul for their relationship or other (opinion) reasons. Picking on their relationship, to me, is coming down to a gossip level with neither of them here to comment - and is it even our 'business' why they got together?
                            >
                            > As far as I know, neither did anything considered illegal at that time by the people in a position to do something about it - and - if the plagiarism was a copyright issue, at the time, were any civil suits filed for this? So, if the original writers didn't care, or their estate -holdes didn't care, maybe it is possible that we can all let it go as well? Then, we can focus on the rich history, from even the other sources. It's sort of like, if you catch your neighbour's spouse stepping out on their spouse - then learn they have an open relationship - are you going to gossip about the cheating spouse? Is that spouse 'cheating' if the other spouse doesn't care? Thus my point with plagiarism - if the writers, or their estate-holders didn't care enough to file a civil suit or complaint, should we be 'judging this'?
                            > (and if you are aware of a lawsuit for this, post it; I think there were only rumours that Kirpal wasn't 'happy' about Tiger's Fang...)
                            >
                            > Just asking, if it feels 'right' - please, all of us, let's take a giant step back and get some perspective on our writing. The forum may be pushing people away who would greatly benefit from all the hard work in posting that has gone on here, and the history in the files.
                            >
                            > At the risk of paraphrasing Gail from one of her talks - she mentioned before speaking Paul had trained her to think: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? Before speaking her mind. (Hindu Kush Mountain Boys + 1 did a song about it, as well) Thus, do we know the truth about their relationship? Is it necessary to even concern ourselves with it? Is it kind to attack Gail? (Paul might be a little more fair game since he is gone now, but only as far as his delivery of the creation of Eckankar.)
                            >
                            > Like I said, I've certainly "done this, too" - and I've made requests of my friends to 'call me on it' when I go in this direction of landing as 'righteous', so I can back off and start recognizing it...and it has helped me to spot it in others, now, too.
                            >
                            > Anyway, for some of you this will "fit" and others may feel I am talking about you, when I am not. Still others, hopefully will see themselves and take my suggestions to heart.
                            >
                            > Can we focus on the history here - Paul, Path of the Masters, Sufism, wherever it all came from? To me, this is the interesting part. I want to learn the history, not the gossip.
                            >
                            > Kindly,
                            >
                            > Paulji_teen
                            >
                            > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
                            > > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
                            > > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
                            > > they would do with it).
                            > >
                            > > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
                            > > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
                            > > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
                            > > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
                            > > body else should have known whether plagiar-
                            > > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
                            > > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
                            > > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
                            > > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
                            > > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
                            > > president of Eckankar?
                            > >
                            > > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
                            > > and that is why one was the Master and the
                            > > other the President. What I mean is, the two
                            > > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
                            > >
                            > > Etznab
                            > >
                            > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@>
                            > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 12:21 pm
                            > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta"
                            > > Creation in 1969
                            > >
                            > > Â
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
                            > >
                            > > Mahanta event and recalled that
                            > >
                            > > Twitchell was having some trouble
                            > >
                            > > with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
                            > >
                            > > this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
                            > >
                            > > Year Plan where he was going to hand
                            > >
                            > > over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
                            > >
                            > > in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
                            > >
                            > > to take root and gr
                            > > ow Paul changed
                            > >
                            > > his mind about handing it over. Paul
                            > >
                            > > shared his new plans and the change
                            > >
                            > > outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
                            > >
                            > > who thought they were next in-line
                            > >
                            > > and would be taking over. They felt
                            > >
                            > > betrayed.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Add this internal EK conflict to the
                            > >
                            > > John-Rogers problems, (and competition
                            > >
                            > > with other groups), to the negative
                            > >
                            > > comments coming from the U.S. reps
                            > >
                            > > of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
                            > >
                            > > group and voila'!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > PT now had the reasons and need
                            > >
                            > > to create the title of "Mahanta" that
                            > >
                            > > gave him complete control and, thus,
                            > >
                            > > placed himself heads above all others.
                            > >
                            > > This title and its definition he created
                            > >
                            > > made PT the King of the Hill. No one
                            > >
                            > > could challenge or question his decisions
                            > >
                            > > since they didn't have his divine powers
                            > >
                            > > or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
                            > >
                            > > known to mankind!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > How dare anyone to question PT's new
                            > >
                            > > "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
                            > >
                            > > himself) since it was something they could
                            > >
                            > > know nothing about because they are
                            > >
                            > > of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
                            > >
                            > > of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
                            > >
                            > > sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
                            > >
                            > > has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
                            > >
                            > > the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
                            > >
                            > > tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
                            > >
                            > > or to recommended materials, it's an easy
                            > >
                            > > ploy to pull off.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Anyway,=2
                            > > 0before Eckankar started to make
                            > >
                            > > big money Paul was as happy as a clam
                            > >
                            > > promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
                            > >
                            > > his views of the "path." However, Paul had
                            > >
                            > > a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
                            > >
                            > > support and impress, and she had her needs
                            > >
                            > > too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
                            > >
                            > > Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
                            > >
                            > > scheme where Eckists were members of her
                            > >
                            > > sales staff.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
                            > >
                            > > and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
                            > >
                            > > why I said that this was a pivotal time and
                            > >
                            > > a complete change of direction for Eckankar.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Prometheus
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                            > >
                            > > I just had a few more observations
                            > >
                            > > and wanted to address some previous
                            > >
                            > > comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Pji Teen:
                            > >
                            > > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                            > >
                            > > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                            > >
                            > > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                            > >
                            > > would have anchored these passages?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > P-
                            > >
                            > > I doubt that this happened since there
                            > >
                            > > are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
                            > >
                            > > And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
                            > >
                            > > EK Masters as his "source" rather than
                            > >
                            > > admit to the truth of his theft.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
                            > >
                            > > his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
                            > >
                            > > and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Klemp came up with the Astral Library
                            > > 0A
                            > > story to explain away the accusations
                            > >
                            > > of plagiarism. However, he also shot
                            > >
                            > > himself in the foot by pointing out that
                            > >
                            > > these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
                            > >
                            > > than Astral Plane teachings!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Pji Teen:
                            > >
                            > > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                            > >
                            > > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                            > >
                            > > to footnote passages?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > P-
                            > >
                            > > It's strange that PT would give Bible
                            > >
                            > > quotes and reference the source in
                            > >
                            > > the same text. He also did this with
                            > >
                            > > other writers just as Klemp does. But,
                            > >
                            > > PT doesn't do this with regard to The
                            > >
                            > > Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
                            > >
                            > > pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
                            > >
                            > > I'm looking in the back of my combined
                            > >
                            > > Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
                            > >
                            > > any references! Thus, he'll give it as
                            > >
                            > > he writes it. Therefore, it was an
                            > >
                            > > intentional omission when PT didn't
                            > >
                            > > mention "The Path of the Masters"
                            > >
                            > > when he uses quotes from this book.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > However, I must say that Twit was sly,
                            > >
                            > > but those are the credentials of a con-
                            > >
                            > > man. As I pointed out in the beginning
                            > >
                            > > of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
                            > >
                            > > a quote word for word in his "The Far
                            > >
                            > > Country" page 131. Here's a partial
                            > >
                            > > quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
                            > >
                            > > is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
                            > >
                            > > has repeated it in substance." Now,
                            > >
                            > > it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
                            > >
                            > > paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
                            > >
                            > > and
                            > > , thus, didn't quote them. However,
                            > >
                            > > Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
                            > >
                            > > and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
                            > >
                            > > style and his creativity! This is unethical!
                            > >
                            > > Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
                            > >
                            > > ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
                            > >
                            > > longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
                            > >
                            > > benefit of the doubt since it is all based
                            > >
                            > > upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
                            > >
                            > > and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
                            > >
                            > > That's a distortion of other religious
                            > >
                            > > teachings including Ruhani Satsang
                            > >
                            > > and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
                            > >
                            > > give this "source." The excuse/con is
                            > >
                            > > that It either came from the "Astral
                            > >
                            > > Library" or it came from the ECK.
                            > >
                            > > Catch-22!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Pji Teen:
                            > >
                            > > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                            > >
                            > > first. One of my areas of interest is
                            > >
                            > > tracking current plagiarism in media
                            > >
                            > > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                            > >
                            > > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                            > >
                            > > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                            > >
                            > > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                            > >
                            > > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                            > >
                            > > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                            > >
                            > > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                            > >
                            > > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > P-
                            > >
                            > > IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
                            > >
                            > > stretch of the imagination. He was
                            > >
                            > > a hack. Most of the things that he
                            > >
                            > > wrote didn't require research into
                            > >
                            > > many facts and when it did Twit
                            > >
                            > > would often make up his
                            > > own.
                            > >
                            > > Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
                            > >
                            > > had to do with recycling old stories
                            > >
                            > > and making some minor changes
                            > >
                            > > to disguise them. And, yes, this did
                            > >
                            > > carry over to his ECKankar writings.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Pji Teen:
                            > >
                            > > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                            > >
                            > > coming through -- we've all grown
                            > >
                            > > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                            > >
                            > > many times your parents told you
                            > >
                            > > something that probably has been
                            > >
                            > > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                            > >
                            > > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                            > >
                            > > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                            > >
                            > > positive purpose in the world.
                            > >
                            > > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                            > >
                            > > if you are really thirsty - do you
                            > >
                            > > really care where the water came
                            > >
                            > > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > P-
                            > >
                            > > I think most of our parents told us
                            > >
                            > > recycled stories about Santa Claus
                            > >
                            > > and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
                            > >
                            > > tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
                            > >
                            > > for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
                            > >
                            > > is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
                            > >
                            > > is safe to drink? Some impurities
                            > >
                            > > are tasteless and show up over time.
                            > >
                            > > As I pointed out once before... the
                            > >
                            > > big pivot point for Twitchell was
                            > >
                            > > when he created the "Mahanta"
                            > >
                            > > title for himself in January 1969.
                            > >
                            > > This is when PT placed an enormous
                            > >
                            > > and unattainable gap between
                            > >
                            > > himself and his followers. He did
                            > >
                            > > this in order to out-do John-
                            > >
                            > > Rogers (a follower who left EK
                            > >
                            > > and started20his own religion by
                            > >
                            > > using PT's discourses etc.). And,
                            > >
                            > > Twit wanted to place himself heads
                            > >
                            > > above every other "Master" and/or
                            > >
                            > > critic (including Kirpal) by placing
                            > >
                            > > himself in a position beyond reproach.
                            > >
                            > > After all, how can anyone criticize,
                            > >
                            > > even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
                            > >
                            > > having the highest "God-Knowledge?"
                            > >
                            > > More Catch-22!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Prometheus
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ****
                            > >
                            > > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                            > >
                            > > Interesting comments! I can recall
                            > >
                            > > that someone wrote that Paul was
                            > >
                            > > told by Orion Press not to submit
                            > >
                            > > anymore articles to them because
                            > >
                            > > he had been caught plagiarizing.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Now, this whole episode took place
                            > >
                            > > long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
                            > >
                            > > Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
                            > >
                            > > plagiarizing was both an unethical
                            > >
                            > > practice and an illegal behaviour.
                            > >
                            > > The magazine could have been sued
                            > >
                            > > and could have lost all credibility
                            > >
                            > > with their readers by having to place
                            > >
                            > > retractions in future editions.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > However, this incident didn't seem
                            > >
                            > > to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
                            > >
                            > > help but lie and deceive with another's
                            > >
                            > > words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
                            > >
                            > > for comparison, and there are more in
                            > >
                            > > the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
                            > >
                            > > also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
                            > >
                            > > of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
                            > >
                            > > copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
                            > >
                            > > from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Masters" as his handbook to create his
                            > >
                            > > "new" religious sect... Eckankar.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > The thing that Paul did, creating a new
                            > >
                            > > sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
                            > >
                            > > for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
                            > >
                            > > Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
                            > >
                            > > a successor, or there is a disagreement
                            > >
                            > > with the choice (another has more
                            > >
                            > > followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
                            > >
                            > > is formed. This is how new (major)
                            > >
                            > > religions are created too! Local, Christian,
                            > >
                            > > Churches do the same! However, Paul,
                            > >
                            > > Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
                            > >
                            > > the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
                            > >
                            > > guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
                            > >
                            > > was one standard and there are others for
                            > >
                            > > writers and researchers. When I got into
                            > >
                            > > research papers for my major the standards
                            > >
                            > > became much more stringent on footnoting
                            > >
                            > > and everything else.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > However, many of these standards concerning
                            > >
                            > > morals and ethics have been around for decades.
                            > >
                            > > Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
                            > >
                            > > should have known about these ethical standards
                            > >
                            > > since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
                            > >
                            > > a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
                            > >
                            > > Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
                            > >
                            > > librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
                            > >
                            > > command. Gail certainly knew something about
                            > >
                            > > ethics and plagiarism.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > However, when greed becomes the focus
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > and one needs to churn out books, for the
                            > >
                            > > new members, in order to makeup for lost
                            > >
                            > > time, then ethics get placed on the back
                            > >
                            > > burner. And, Paul had a track record for
                            > >
                            > > embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
                            > >
                            > > pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
                            > >
                            > > was doing his lying and self-promotion
                            > >
                            > > about himself and his travels at age 27,
                            > >
                            > > in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
                            > >
                            > > while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
                            > >
                            > > to have made a trip to India. HK states that
                            > >
                            > > PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
                            > >
                            > > trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
                            > >
                            > > (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
                            > >
                            > > own research into these dates! Klemp just
                            > >
                            > > didn't see that he provided the dates that
                            > >
                            > > prove that Twit was lying about meeting
                            > >
                            > > Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
                            > >
                            > > LOL!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Prometheus
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > paulji_teen wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > This topic seems to keep coming up...
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I can only speak to my own experience.
                            > >
                            > > In the 1960s in my first experience
                            > >
                            > > writing papers, in school I was taught
                            > >
                            > > one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
                            > >
                            > > By the time I hit high school, the rules
                            > >
                            > > for this had slightly changed. By university,
                            > >
                            > > there were even more rules related to
                            > >
                            > > without giving credit, etc.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
                            > >
                            > > shifting, or, as students we were just
                            > >
                            > > getting more clarity fro
                            > > m professors.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Paul may have thought it was okay to
                            > >
                            > > list short passages. What I don't know --
                            > >
                            > > are you finding like full pages, or full
                            > >
                            > > chapters, that word for word are identical?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                            > >
                            > > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                            > >
                            > > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                            > >
                            > > would have anchored these passages?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                            > >
                            > > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                            > >
                            > > to footnote passages?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Today's research writers, I think, are
                            > >
                            > > more careful about plagiarism as there
                            > >
                            > > are more lawsuits and more legal and
                            > >
                            > > collegiate focus on educating writers about
                            > >
                            > > plagiarism.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                            > >
                            > > first. One of my areas of interest is
                            > >
                            > > tracking current plagiarism in media
                            > >
                            > > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                            > >
                            > > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                            > >
                            > > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                            > >
                            > > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                            > >
                            > > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                            > >
                            > > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                            > >
                            > > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                            > >
                            > > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                            > >
                            > > coming through -- we've all grown
                            > >
                            > > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                            > >
                            > > many times your parents told you
                            > >
                            > > something that probably has been
                            > >
                            > > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                            > > =0
                            > > A
                            > > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                            > >
                            > > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                            > >
                            > > positive purpose in the world.
                            > >
                            > > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                            > >
                            > > if you are really thirsty - do you
                            > >
                            > > really care where the water came
                            > >
                            > > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Paulji_teen
                            > >
                            >
                          • prometheus_973
                            It s interesting to take another look at these 1980 comments. In May or June of 1980 Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from Darwin who Bluth says was not
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 7, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It's interesting to take another look at these
                              1980 comments. In May or June of 1980
                              Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from
                              Darwin who Bluth says was not a "Master"
                              (LEM) based upon his lustful behaviour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Prometheus


                              prometheus wrote:

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


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

                              Date: June 19, 1980

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                            • etznab@aol.com
                              Here is another Eckankar quote from The Far Country along with one from The Path of the Masters. [Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell] The whole universe is
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 7, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Here is another Eckankar quote from The
                                Far Country along with one from The Path of
                                the Masters.

                                [Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                I wonder. Can it be both?

                                Any thoughts on this?

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

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

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

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

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

                                I always thought that was kind of curious.



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

                                Etznab

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

                                 






                                It's interesting to take another look at these

                                1980 comments. In May or June of 1980

                                Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from

                                Darwin who Bluth says was not a "Master"

                                (LEM) based upon his lustful behaviour.



                                Apparently, Darwin had already "fallen

                                from Grace" during the time Klemp was

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

                                12th initiations, and the Rod of ECK Power,

                                (the LEM position) from him! That explains

                                a lot! Also, in 1980 and 1981 Klemp had

                                Darwin meet him in the Sound Proofed

                                Dark Room at the ESC that Klemp worked

                                in daily in order to discuss the eventual

                                transition of power. [HK's "Soul Travelers

                                of the Far Country," CH. 7]



                                However, we also see that Twitchell was

                                no "Master" either! Bluth states that he

                                helped Paul to write "HERBS, The Magic

                                Healers," and that Paul borrowed his

                                Radha Soami books. I'm
                                certain that

                                "The Path of the Masters" was one of

                                these books. Twitchell's "The Far Country"

                                is copyrighted in 1970, and there is a

                                word for word quote on page 131 that

                                was taken from the beginning of Chapter

                                2 from "The Path of the Masters."



                                Thus, a spiritual "ECK Master" of the

                                highest Order should, also, have integrity!

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

                                consciousness... right! One Law, from the

                                Old Testament (of the Bible), states that

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

                                supposedly, have even higher and more

                                evolved standards far surpassing these

                                early basic laws, as well as, early "copyright

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

                                of ethical behaviour and of right and wrong.

                                Paul was wrong and so is Klemp. Thus,

                                their negative actions and disregard of

                                truth and openness shows that they are

                                deceitful and of the KAL consciousness.



                                And, there's more information that is

                                taken from "Path." Both Twitchell and,

                                now, Klemp have made it their own and

                                a part of the ECK Dogma without giving

                                credit to the original source.



                                Here's the quote from "The Path of the

                                Masters" CH.6:



                                "A rule laid down by the noble Buddha

                                is a most excellent one for all men to

                                follow. He said that if you propose to

                                speak, always ask yourself--Is it true,


                                is it necessary, is it kind?"



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

                                1998 EK Lexicon (pg.159)], about

                                these words of wisdom coming from

                                the Buddha, except, HK (also) omits

                                that the quote came from the Buddha:



                                "path of the trinity. Three questions

                                to ask oneself when in doubt about

                                an action: Is it true? Is it necessary?

                                Is it kind?"



                                Recently a poster, on this site, mentioned

                                that she heard Gail give a talk (1971?)

                                where she gave Twitchell (her husband)

                                credit for this quote and, of course, Gail

                                didn't mention that these thoughts / rules

                                had originally come from the Buddha!



                                Gail may have been innocent about knowing

                                the original source (Buddha) of this one quote,

                                but she wasn't innocent with regards to

                                Twitchell's other plagiarisms and religious

                                scam. Paul states in "Difficulties Of Becoming

                                the LEM" that Gail encouraged him to share

                                his religious philosophy and compiled notes

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

                                somewhat.



                                It was that West Coast New Age thinking

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

                                of how other groups/cults got their start.

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

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

                                these Eastern teachings with "living masters"

                                (Radhasoami/Ruhani) were merely altered

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

                                Twitchell's exaggerations of truth by 'twisting

                                facts.' It's obvious that Klemp has nothing

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

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

                                master to read or to experience this. Just

                                imagine and create your own reality as Soul!



                                Prometheus



                                prometheus wrote:



                                Hello All,

                                I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                                and found a lot of information. The following

                                is one source that showed up on this search:



                                Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                                former President of Eckankar, one-time

                                follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                                personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                                in 1971:



                                Date: June 19, 1980



                                My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                                in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                                [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                                speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                                Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                                and I considered him honest.



                                Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                                him to believe she was going to leave him

                                and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                                So when she demanded more money and

                                better living, he started to write things and

                                copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                                borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                                copied a large shar
                                e from them.



                                I helped him write the Herb book and went

                                to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                                so basically much of the material is good

                                because it is copied.



                                I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                                he had done and his answer was "since the

                                author the book said it better than I could

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

                                anyone credit as to where he got it.



                                As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                                I don't think that a Master would divorce

                                his wife and seek many other female companions.



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