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

The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta" Creation in 1969

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.