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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta" Creation in 1969

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Aug 4 4:38 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
      over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
      the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
      they would do with it).

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

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

      Etznab

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

       






      I was thinking about this 01/01/1969

      Mahanta event and recalled that

      Twitchell was having some trouble

      with a few disgruntled H.I.s around

      this timeframe. Paul had had a Five

      Year Plan where he was going to hand

      over the EK (LEM) leadership to another

      in 1970. However, as Eckankar began

      to take root and gr
      ow Paul changed

      his mind about handing it over. Paul

      shared his new plans and the change

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

      who thought they were next in-line

      and would be taking over. They felt

      betrayed.



      Add this internal EK conflict to the

      John-Rogers problems, (and competition

      with other groups), to the negative

      comments coming from the U.S. reps

      of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang

      group and voila'!



      PT now had the reasons and need

      to create the title of "Mahanta" that

      gave him complete control and, thus,

      placed himself heads above all others.

      This title and its definition he created

      made PT the King of the Hill. No one

      could challenge or question his decisions

      since they didn't have his divine powers

      or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness

      known to mankind!



      How dare anyone to question PT's new

      "Mahanta" authority (that he created for

      himself) since it was something they could

      know nothing about because they are

      of a lower initiation and of a lower plane

      of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who

      sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),

      has the authority to guide ALL Souls on

      the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists

      tend to limit their reading to Ek books,

      or to recommended materials, it's an easy

      ploy to pull off.



      Anyway,=2
      0before Eckankar started to make

      big money Paul was as happy as a clam

      promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing

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

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

      support and impress, and she had her needs

      too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.

      Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin

      scheme where Eckists were members of her

      sales staff.



      All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar

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

      why I said that this was a pivotal time and

      a complete change of direction for Eckankar.



      Prometheus



      Hello Paulji teen and All,

      I just had a few more observations

      and wanted to address some previous

      comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.



      Pji Teen:

      Secondly, is there a possibility that when

      Illuminated Way Press went to print they

      didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe

      would have anchored these passages?



      P-

      I doubt that this happened since there

      are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.

      And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other

      EK Masters as his "source" rather than

      admit to the truth of his theft.



      For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as

      his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,

      and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.



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

      of plagiarism. However, he also shot

      himself in the foot by pointing out that

      these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher

      than Astral Plane teachings!



      Pji Teen:

      Thirdly, were the copyrights expired

      on the earlier works, so he didn't think

      to footnote passages?



      P-

      It's strange that PT would give Bible

      quotes and reference the source in

      the same text. He also did this with

      other writers just as Klemp does. But,

      PT doesn't do this with regard to The

      Path of the Masters. How many footnoted

      pages are there in ALL of PT's works?

      I'm looking in the back of my combined

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

      any references! Thus, he'll give it as

      he writes it. Therefore, it was an

      intentional omission when PT didn't

      mention "The Path of the Masters"

      when he uses quotes from this book.



      However, I must say that Twit was sly,

      but those are the credentials of a con-

      man. As I pointed out in the beginning

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

      a quote word for word in his "The Far

      Country" page 131. Here's a partial

      quote. "Voltaire has said that religion

      is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche

      has repeated it in substance." Now,

      it seems that Julian P. Johnson was

      paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,

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

      Twitchell took Johnson's exact words

      and thoughts. Twit stole his writing

      style and his creativity! This is unethical!

      Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have

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

      longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the

      benefit of the doubt since it is all based

      upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions

      and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!

      That's a distortion of other religious

      teachings including Ruhani Satsang

      and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK

      give this "source." The excuse/con is

      that It either came from the "Astral

      Library" or it came from the ECK.

      Catch-22!



      Pji Teen:

      As a side note: Paul was a journalist,

      first. One of my areas of interest is

      tracking current plagiarism in media

      and journalism - it is rampant! The

      disregard for fact-checking, and just

      recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.

      Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,

      pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way

      to do things, as well - and it just carried

      over into the Eck writings? I don't

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



      P-

      IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a

      stretch of the imagination. He was

      a hack. Most of the things that he

      wrote didn't require research into

      many facts and when it did Twit

      would often make up his
      own.

      Track his Orion plagiarisms. This

      had to do with recycling old stories

      and making some minor changes

      to disguise them. And, yes, this did

      carry over to his ECKankar writings.



      Pji Teen:

      My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably

      coming through -- we've all grown

      up with plagiarism. (Think about how

      many times your parents told you

      something that probably has been

      recited for generations?) I'm not so

      ready to "shoot the messenger".

      Eckankar has and does serve a mostly

      positive purpose in the world.

      Maybe a risk at another analogy -

      if you are really thirsty - do you

      really care where the water came

      from, as long as it is safe to drink?



      P-

      I think most of our parents told us

      recycled stories about Santa Claus

      and the Easter Bunny, or old wives

      tales... or urban legends. PT wrote

      for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why

      is it that PT's Eckankar "water"

      is safe to drink? Some impurities

      are tasteless and show up over time.

      As I pointed out once before... the

      big pivot point for Twitchell was

      when he created the "Mahanta"

      title for himself in January 1969.

      This is when PT placed an enormous

      and unattainable gap between

      himself and his followers. He did

      this in order to out-do John-

      Rogers (a follower who left EK

      and started20his own religion by

      using PT's discourses etc.). And,

      Twit wanted to place himself heads

      above every other "Master" and/or

      critic (including Kirpal) by placing

      himself in a position beyond reproach.

      After all, how can anyone criticize,

      even, a self-proclaimed GOD without

      having the highest "God-Knowledge?"

      More Catch-22!



      Prometheus



      ****

      Hello Paulji teen and All,

      Interesting comments! I can recall

      that someone wrote that Paul was

      told by Orion Press not to submit

      anymore articles to them because

      he had been caught plagiarizing.



      Now, this whole episode took place

      long before Twitchell created Eckankar.

      Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his

      plagiarizing was both an unethical

      practice and an illegal behaviour.

      The magazine could have been sued

      and could have lost all credibility

      with their readers by having to place

      retractions in future editions.



      However, this incident didn't seem

      to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't

      help but lie and deceive with another's

      words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,

      for comparison, and there are more in

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

      also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"

      of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul

      copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path

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


      Masters" as his handbook to create his

      "new" religious sect... Eckankar.



      The thing that Paul did, creating a new

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

      for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a

      Master dies and doesn't directly appoint

      a successor, or there is a disagreement

      with the choice (another has more

      followers, etc.) then another sect/faction

      is formed. This is how new (major)

      religions are created too! Local, Christian,

      Churches do the same! However, Paul,

      Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden

      the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.



      Yes, I had to use ethical standards and

      guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA

      was one standard and there are others for

      writers and researchers. When I got into

      research papers for my major the standards

      became much more stringent on footnoting

      and everything else.



      However, many of these standards concerning

      morals and ethics have been around for decades.

      Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul

      should have known about these ethical standards

      since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and

      a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian

      Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former

      librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in

      command. Gail certainly knew something about

      ethics and plagiarism.



      However, when greed becomes the focus


      and one needs to churn out books, for the

      new members, in order to makeup for lost

      time, then ethics get placed on the back

      burner. And, Paul had a track record for

      embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has

      pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul

      was doing his lying and self-promotion

      about himself and his travels at age 27,

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

      while in that same year, 1935, is claiming

      to have made a trip to India. HK states that

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

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

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

      own research into these dates! Klemp just

      didn't see that he provided the dates that

      prove that Twit was lying about meeting

      Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!

      LOL!



      Prometheus



      paulji_teen wrote:



      This topic seems to keep coming up...



      I can only speak to my own experience.

      In the 1960s in my first experience

      writing papers, in school I was taught

      one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.

      By the time I hit high school, the rules

      for this had slightly changed. By university,

      there were even more rules related to

      without giving credit, etc.



      I don't know if the plagiarism laws were

      shifting, or, as students we were just

      getting more clarity fro
      m professors.



      Paul may have thought it was okay to

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

      are you finding like full pages, or full

      chapters, that word for word are identical?



      Secondly, is there a possibility that when

      Illuminated Way Press went to print they

      didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe

      would have anchored these passages?



      Thirdly, were the copyrights expired

      on the earlier works, so he didn't think

      to footnote passages?



      Today's research writers, I think, are

      more careful about plagiarism as there

      are more lawsuits and more legal and

      collegiate focus on educating writers about

      plagiarism.



      As a side note: Paul was a journalist,

      first. One of my areas of interest is

      tracking current plagiarism in media

      and journalism - it is rampant! The

      disregard for fact-checking, and just

      recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.

      Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,

      pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way

      to do things, as well - and it just carried

      over into the Eck writings? I don't

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



      My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably

      coming through -- we've all grown

      up with plagiarism. (Think about how

      many times your parents told you

      something that probably has been

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

      Eckankar has and does serve a mostly

      positive purpose in the world.

      Maybe a risk at another analogy -

      if you are really thirsty - do you

      really care where the water came

      from, as long as it is safe to drink?



      Paulji_teen
    • prometheus_973
      Hello Leanne and All, Well, you re close. That s Sunasu Vitamins. I m not sure if Gail sold this company off or still has some involvement with it. The
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 5 11:51 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Leanne and All,
        Well, you're close. That's Sunasu Vitamins.
        I'm not sure if Gail sold this company
        off or still has some involvement with
        it. The products now seem to be sold
        by individual distributors (multi-level
        marketing) like Amway or Shaklee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Prometheus


        le_anne wrote:

        sununu vitamins?


        prometheus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Prometheus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Prometheus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Prometheus

        paulji_teen wrote:

        This topic seems to keep coming up...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Paulji_teen
      • prometheus_973
        Hello Etznab and All, I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL and found a lot of information. The following is one source that showed up on this search:
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 5 12:21 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Etznab and All,
          I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
          and found a lot of information. The following
          is one source that showed up on this search:


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

          Date: June 19, 1980

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.


          etznab@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
          > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
          > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
          > they would do with it).
          >
          > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
          > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
          > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
          > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
          > body else should have known whether plagiar-
          > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
          > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
          > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
          > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
          > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
          > president of Eckankar?
          >
          > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
          > and that is why one was the Master and the
          > other the President. What I mean is, the two
          > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
          >
          > Etznab
        • etznab@aol.com
          That was the source I was thinking of. Thanks for posting it. The only problem I have with all of the copying and not giving credit is that the credit (it
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 5 6:34 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            That was the source I was thinking of.
            Thanks for posting it.

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

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

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

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

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

            Etznab


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

             






            Hello Etznab and All,

            I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

            and found a lot of information. The following

            is one source that showed up on this search:



            Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

            former President of Eckankar, one-time

            follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

            personal doctor when the Eck leader died

            in 1971:



            Date: June 19, 1980



            My wife and I opened the first Eck class

            in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

            [Twitchell] many times and was the main

            speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

            Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

            and I considered him honest.



            Problems between him and his wife Gail led

            him to believe she was going to leave him

            and he desperately wanted to keep her.



            So when she demanded more money and

            better living, he started to write things and

            copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

            borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

            copied a large share from them.



            I helped him write the Herb book and went

            to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

            so basically much of the material is good

            because it is copied.



            I confronted him [Paul Twitch
            ell] with what

            he had done and his answer was "since the

            author the book said it better than I could

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

            anyone credit as to where he got it.



            As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

            I don't think that a Master would divorce

            his wife and seek many other female companions.



            Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.



            etznab@... wrote:

            >

            >

            > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar

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

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

            > they would do with it).

            >

            > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection

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

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

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

            > body else should have known whether plagiar-

            > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether

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

            > other authors. What was Bluth's position in

            > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s

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

            > president of Eckankar?

            >

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

            > and that is why one was the Master and the

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

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

            >

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


              THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS

              Translation and Successorship


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

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

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


              The Controversial "Five Year Plan"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              The Advent of Darwin Gross

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

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

              The Eckankar News Release reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

              Post-Twitchellian Eckankar

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

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

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

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

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

              The Third Living Eck Master: Harold Klemp

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

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

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

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

              2. Ibid.

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

              4. Ibid.

              5. Ibid., pages 20-21.

              6. Ibid., page 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


              Birth and early life

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

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

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

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

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


              Role in Eckankar

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


              Death

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

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


              prometheus wrote:
              >
              > Hello Etznab and All,
              > I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL
              > and found a lot of information. The following
              > is one source that showed up on this search:
              >
              >
              > Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,
              > former President of Eckankar, one-time
              > follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's
              > personal doctor when the Eck leader died
              > in 1971:
              >
              > Date: June 19, 1980
              >
              > My wife and I opened the first Eck class
              > in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul
              > [Twitchell] many times and was the main
              > speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.
              > Paul was a sincere student in the beginning
              > and I considered him honest.
              >
              > Problems between him and his wife Gail led
              > him to believe she was going to leave him
              > and he desperately wanted to keep her.
              >
              > So when she demanded more money and
              > better living, he started to write things and
              > copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]
              > borrowed my books on Radha Soami and
              > copied a large share from them.
              >
              > I helped him write the Herb book and went
              > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,
              > so basically much of the material is good
              > because it is copied.
              >
              > I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what
              > he had done and his answer was "since the
              > author the book said it better than I could
              > I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave
              > anyone credit as to where he got it.
              >
              > As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,
              > my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master.
              > I don't think that a Master would divorce
              > his wife and seek many other female companions.
              >
              > Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
              >
              >
              > etznab@ wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
              > > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
              > > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
              > > they would do with it).
              > >
              > > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
              > > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
              > > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
              > > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
              > > body else should have known whether plagiar-
              > > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
              > > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
              > > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
              > > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
              > > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
              > > president of Eckankar?
              > >
              > > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
              > > and that is why one was the Master and the
              > > other the President. What I mean is, the two
              > > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
              > >
              > > Etznab
              >
            • prometheus_973
              Hello Etznab and All, I was thinking about this myself and about how Klemp and company use the excuse that it all came/comes from the ECK. Words are words and
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 5 11:15 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Etznab and All,
                I was thinking about this myself and
                about how Klemp and company use
                the excuse that it all came/comes
                from the ECK. Words are words and
                they are there for everyone to use.
                And, every invention was already
                created (and simply needs to be
                manifested) and is recorded in the
                Astral Library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Prometheus


                etznab wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Etznab


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

                Â






                Hello Etznab and All,

                I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                and found a lot of information. The following

                is one source that showed up on this search:



                Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                former President of Eckankar, one-time

                follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                in 1971:



                Date: June 19, 1980



                My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                and I considered him honest.



                Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                him to believe she was going to leave him

                and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                So when she demanded more money and

                better living, he started to write things and

                copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                copied a large share from them.



                I helped him write the Herb book and went

                to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                so basically much of the material is good

                because it is copied.



                I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                he had done and his answer was "since the

                author the book said it better than I could

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

                anyone credit as to where he got it.



                As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                I don't think that a Master would divorce

                his wife and seek many other female companions.



                Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
              • paulji_teen
                Open comments: (and this doesn t apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.) Yikes????! I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads for
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 6 1:49 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.)

                  Yikes????!

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

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

                  My bigger concern is asking you...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Kindly,

                  Paulji_teen

                  --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
                  > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
                  > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
                  > they would do with it).
                  >
                  > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
                  > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
                  > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
                  > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
                  > body else should have known whether plagiar-
                  > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
                  > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
                  > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
                  > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
                  > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
                  > president of Eckankar?
                  >
                  > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
                  > and that is why one was the Master and the
                  > other the President. What I mean is, the two
                  > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
                  >
                  > Etznab
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                  > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 12:21 pm
                  > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta"
                  > Creation in 1969
                  >
                  > Â
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
                  >
                  > Mahanta event and recalled that
                  >
                  > Twitchell was having some trouble
                  >
                  > with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
                  >
                  > this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
                  >
                  > Year Plan where he was going to hand
                  >
                  > over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
                  >
                  > in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
                  >
                  > to take root and gr
                  > ow Paul changed
                  >
                  > his mind about handing it over. Paul
                  >
                  > shared his new plans and the change
                  >
                  > outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
                  >
                  > who thought they were next in-line
                  >
                  > and would be taking over. They felt
                  >
                  > betrayed.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Add this internal EK conflict to the
                  >
                  > John-Rogers problems, (and competition
                  >
                  > with other groups), to the negative
                  >
                  > comments coming from the U.S. reps
                  >
                  > of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
                  >
                  > group and voila'!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > PT now had the reasons and need
                  >
                  > to create the title of "Mahanta" that
                  >
                  > gave him complete control and, thus,
                  >
                  > placed himself heads above all others.
                  >
                  > This title and its definition he created
                  >
                  > made PT the King of the Hill. No one
                  >
                  > could challenge or question his decisions
                  >
                  > since they didn't have his divine powers
                  >
                  > or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
                  >
                  > known to mankind!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > How dare anyone to question PT's new
                  >
                  > "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
                  >
                  > himself) since it was something they could
                  >
                  > know nothing about because they are
                  >
                  > of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
                  >
                  > of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
                  >
                  > sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
                  >
                  > has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
                  >
                  > the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
                  >
                  > tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
                  >
                  > or to recommended materials, it's an easy
                  >
                  > ploy to pull off.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Anyway,=2
                  > 0before Eckankar started to make
                  >
                  > big money Paul was as happy as a clam
                  >
                  > promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
                  >
                  > his views of the "path." However, Paul had
                  >
                  > a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
                  >
                  > support and impress, and she had her needs
                  >
                  > too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
                  >
                  > Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
                  >
                  > scheme where Eckists were members of her
                  >
                  > sales staff.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
                  >
                  > and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
                  >
                  > why I said that this was a pivotal time and
                  >
                  > a complete change of direction for Eckankar.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Prometheus
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                  >
                  > I just had a few more observations
                  >
                  > and wanted to address some previous
                  >
                  > comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Pji Teen:
                  >
                  > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                  >
                  > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                  >
                  > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                  >
                  > would have anchored these passages?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > P-
                  >
                  > I doubt that this happened since there
                  >
                  > are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
                  >
                  > And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
                  >
                  > EK Masters as his "source" rather than
                  >
                  > admit to the truth of his theft.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
                  >
                  > his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
                  >
                  > and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Klemp came up with the Astral Library
                  > 0A
                  > story to explain away the accusations
                  >
                  > of plagiarism. However, he also shot
                  >
                  > himself in the foot by pointing out that
                  >
                  > these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
                  >
                  > than Astral Plane teachings!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Pji Teen:
                  >
                  > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                  >
                  > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                  >
                  > to footnote passages?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > P-
                  >
                  > It's strange that PT would give Bible
                  >
                  > quotes and reference the source in
                  >
                  > the same text. He also did this with
                  >
                  > other writers just as Klemp does. But,
                  >
                  > PT doesn't do this with regard to The
                  >
                  > Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
                  >
                  > pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
                  >
                  > I'm looking in the back of my combined
                  >
                  > Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
                  >
                  > any references! Thus, he'll give it as
                  >
                  > he writes it. Therefore, it was an
                  >
                  > intentional omission when PT didn't
                  >
                  > mention "The Path of the Masters"
                  >
                  > when he uses quotes from this book.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > However, I must say that Twit was sly,
                  >
                  > but those are the credentials of a con-
                  >
                  > man. As I pointed out in the beginning
                  >
                  > of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
                  >
                  > a quote word for word in his "The Far
                  >
                  > Country" page 131. Here's a partial
                  >
                  > quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
                  >
                  > is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
                  >
                  > has repeated it in substance." Now,
                  >
                  > it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
                  >
                  > paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
                  >
                  > and
                  > , thus, didn't quote them. However,
                  >
                  > Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
                  >
                  > and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
                  >
                  > style and his creativity! This is unethical!
                  >
                  > Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
                  >
                  > ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
                  >
                  > longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
                  >
                  > benefit of the doubt since it is all based
                  >
                  > upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
                  >
                  > and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
                  >
                  > That's a distortion of other religious
                  >
                  > teachings including Ruhani Satsang
                  >
                  > and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
                  >
                  > give this "source." The excuse/con is
                  >
                  > that It either came from the "Astral
                  >
                  > Library" or it came from the ECK.
                  >
                  > Catch-22!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Pji Teen:
                  >
                  > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                  >
                  > first. One of my areas of interest is
                  >
                  > tracking current plagiarism in media
                  >
                  > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                  >
                  > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                  >
                  > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                  >
                  > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                  >
                  > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                  >
                  > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                  >
                  > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                  >
                  > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > P-
                  >
                  > IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
                  >
                  > stretch of the imagination. He was
                  >
                  > a hack. Most of the things that he
                  >
                  > wrote didn't require research into
                  >
                  > many facts and when it did Twit
                  >
                  > would often make up his
                  > own.
                  >
                  > Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
                  >
                  > had to do with recycling old stories
                  >
                  > and making some minor changes
                  >
                  > to disguise them. And, yes, this did
                  >
                  > carry over to his ECKankar writings.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Pji Teen:
                  >
                  > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                  >
                  > coming through -- we've all grown
                  >
                  > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                  >
                  > many times your parents told you
                  >
                  > something that probably has been
                  >
                  > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                  >
                  > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                  >
                  > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                  >
                  > positive purpose in the world.
                  >
                  > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                  >
                  > if you are really thirsty - do you
                  >
                  > really care where the water came
                  >
                  > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > P-
                  >
                  > I think most of our parents told us
                  >
                  > recycled stories about Santa Claus
                  >
                  > and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
                  >
                  > tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
                  >
                  > for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
                  >
                  > is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
                  >
                  > is safe to drink? Some impurities
                  >
                  > are tasteless and show up over time.
                  >
                  > As I pointed out once before... the
                  >
                  > big pivot point for Twitchell was
                  >
                  > when he created the "Mahanta"
                  >
                  > title for himself in January 1969.
                  >
                  > This is when PT placed an enormous
                  >
                  > and unattainable gap between
                  >
                  > himself and his followers. He did
                  >
                  > this in order to out-do John-
                  >
                  > Rogers (a follower who left EK
                  >
                  > and started20his own religion by
                  >
                  > using PT's discourses etc.). And,
                  >
                  > Twit wanted to place himself heads
                  >
                  > above every other "Master" and/or
                  >
                  > critic (including Kirpal) by placing
                  >
                  > himself in a position beyond reproach.
                  >
                  > After all, how can anyone criticize,
                  >
                  > even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
                  >
                  > having the highest "God-Knowledge?"
                  >
                  > More Catch-22!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Prometheus
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ****
                  >
                  > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                  >
                  > Interesting comments! I can recall
                  >
                  > that someone wrote that Paul was
                  >
                  > told by Orion Press not to submit
                  >
                  > anymore articles to them because
                  >
                  > he had been caught plagiarizing.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Now, this whole episode took place
                  >
                  > long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
                  >
                  > Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
                  >
                  > plagiarizing was both an unethical
                  >
                  > practice and an illegal behaviour.
                  >
                  > The magazine could have been sued
                  >
                  > and could have lost all credibility
                  >
                  > with their readers by having to place
                  >
                  > retractions in future editions.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > However, this incident didn't seem
                  >
                  > to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
                  >
                  > help but lie and deceive with another's
                  >
                  > words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
                  >
                  > for comparison, and there are more in
                  >
                  > the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
                  >
                  > also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
                  >
                  > of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
                  >
                  > copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
                  >
                  > from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
                  >
                  >
                  > Masters" as his handbook to create his
                  >
                  > "new" religious sect... Eckankar.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The thing that Paul did, creating a new
                  >
                  > sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
                  >
                  > for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
                  >
                  > Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
                  >
                  > a successor, or there is a disagreement
                  >
                  > with the choice (another has more
                  >
                  > followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
                  >
                  > is formed. This is how new (major)
                  >
                  > religions are created too! Local, Christian,
                  >
                  > Churches do the same! However, Paul,
                  >
                  > Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
                  >
                  > the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
                  >
                  > guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
                  >
                  > was one standard and there are others for
                  >
                  > writers and researchers. When I got into
                  >
                  > research papers for my major the standards
                  >
                  > became much more stringent on footnoting
                  >
                  > and everything else.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > However, many of these standards concerning
                  >
                  > morals and ethics have been around for decades.
                  >
                  > Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
                  >
                  > should have known about these ethical standards
                  >
                  > since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
                  >
                  > a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
                  >
                  > Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
                  >
                  > librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
                  >
                  > command. Gail certainly knew something about
                  >
                  > ethics and plagiarism.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > However, when greed becomes the focus
                  >
                  >
                  > and one needs to churn out books, for the
                  >
                  > new members, in order to makeup for lost
                  >
                  > time, then ethics get placed on the back
                  >
                  > burner. And, Paul had a track record for
                  >
                  > embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
                  >
                  > pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
                  >
                  > was doing his lying and self-promotion
                  >
                  > about himself and his travels at age 27,
                  >
                  > in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
                  >
                  > while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
                  >
                  > to have made a trip to India. HK states that
                  >
                  > PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
                  >
                  > trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
                  >
                  > (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
                  >
                  > own research into these dates! Klemp just
                  >
                  > didn't see that he provided the dates that
                  >
                  > prove that Twit was lying about meeting
                  >
                  > Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
                  >
                  > LOL!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Prometheus
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > paulji_teen wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > This topic seems to keep coming up...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I can only speak to my own experience.
                  >
                  > In the 1960s in my first experience
                  >
                  > writing papers, in school I was taught
                  >
                  > one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
                  >
                  > By the time I hit high school, the rules
                  >
                  > for this had slightly changed. By university,
                  >
                  > there were even more rules related to
                  >
                  > without giving credit, etc.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
                  >
                  > shifting, or, as students we were just
                  >
                  > getting more clarity fro
                  > m professors.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Paul may have thought it was okay to
                  >
                  > list short passages. What I don't know --
                  >
                  > are you finding like full pages, or full
                  >
                  > chapters, that word for word are identical?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                  >
                  > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                  >
                  > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                  >
                  > would have anchored these passages?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                  >
                  > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                  >
                  > to footnote passages?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Today's research writers, I think, are
                  >
                  > more careful about plagiarism as there
                  >
                  > are more lawsuits and more legal and
                  >
                  > collegiate focus on educating writers about
                  >
                  > plagiarism.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                  >
                  > first. One of my areas of interest is
                  >
                  > tracking current plagiarism in media
                  >
                  > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                  >
                  > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                  >
                  > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                  >
                  > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                  >
                  > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                  >
                  > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                  >
                  > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                  >
                  > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                  >
                  > coming through -- we've all grown
                  >
                  > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                  >
                  > many times your parents told you
                  >
                  > something that probably has been
                  >
                  > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                  > =0
                  > A
                  > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                  >
                  > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                  >
                  > positive purpose in the world.
                  >
                  > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                  >
                  > if you are really thirsty - do you
                  >
                  > really care where the water came
                  >
                  > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Paulji_teen
                  >
                • prometheus_973
                  Hello paulji teen and All, For one thing this is an anti-Eckankar site and Eckankar is a religion (cult) vs. a path. And, It s okay if (on the thread) people
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 6 8:51 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello paulji teen and All,
                    For one thing this is an anti-Eckankar site
                    and Eckankar is a religion (cult) vs. a "path."
                    And, It's okay if (on the thread) people vary
                    off course some with "history." In many ways
                    it's all connected. Dr. Bluth's letter confirms
                    what I've heard about Gail and this isn't gossip
                    it's an analysis with personal observation and
                    is based upon many factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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


                    Prometheus


                    paulji_teen wrote:

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

                    Yikes????!

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

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

                    My bigger concern is asking you...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Are you unattached to the outcome?

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

                    Is there room for 'all' in this forum?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Is it necessary to even concern ourselves
                    with it?

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

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

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

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

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

                    Kindly,

                    Paulji_teen

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

                    prometheus wrote:
                    >
                    > I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
                    >
                    > Mahanta event and recalled that
                    >
                    > Twitchell was having some trouble
                    >
                    > with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
                    >
                    > this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
                    >
                    > Year Plan where he was going to hand
                    >
                    > over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
                    >
                    > in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
                    >
                    > to take root and gr
                    > ow Paul changed
                    >
                    > his mind about handing it over. Paul
                    >
                    > shared his new plans and the change
                    >
                    > outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
                    >
                    > who thought they were next in-line
                    >
                    > and would be taking over. They felt
                    >
                    > betrayed.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Add this internal EK conflict to the
                    >
                    > John-Rogers problems, (and competition
                    >
                    > with other groups), to the negative
                    >
                    > comments coming from the U.S. reps
                    >
                    > of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
                    >
                    > group and voila'!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > PT now had the reasons and need
                    >
                    > to create the title of "Mahanta" that
                    >
                    > gave him complete control and, thus,
                    >
                    > placed himself heads above all others.
                    >
                    > This title and its definition he created
                    >
                    > made PT the King of the Hill. No one
                    >
                    > could challenge or question his decisions
                    >
                    > since they didn't have his divine powers
                    >
                    > or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
                    >
                    > known to mankind!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > How dare anyone to question PT's new
                    >
                    > "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
                    >
                    > himself) since it was something they could
                    >
                    > know nothing about because they are
                    >
                    > of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
                    >
                    > of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
                    >
                    > sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
                    >
                    > has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
                    >
                    > the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
                    >
                    > tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
                    >
                    > or to recommended materials, it's an easy
                    >
                    > ploy to pull off.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Anyway, before Eckankar started to make
                    >
                    > big money Paul was as happy as a clam
                    >
                    > promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
                    >
                    > his views of the "path." However, Paul had
                    >
                    > a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
                    >
                    > support and impress, and she had her needs
                    >
                    > too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
                    >
                    > Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
                    >
                    > scheme where Eckists were members of her
                    >
                    > sales staff.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
                    >
                    > and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
                    >
                    > why I said that this was a pivotal time and
                    >
                    > a complete change of direction for Eckankar.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Prometheus
                    >
                  • etznab@aol.com
                    Do you have a link to online version of The Path of the Masters? I thought there was one posted here recently, but I can t seem to find where I saved it in my
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 6 3:27 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Do you have a link to online version of The
                      Path of the Masters? I thought there was one
                      posted here recently, but I can't seem to find
                      where I saved it in my favorites folder.

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

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

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

                      Etznab



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

                       






                      Hello All,

                      Here's more that I found after I GOOGLED

                      DR. BLUTH and PAUL TWITCHELL.



                      THE ADVENT OF DARWIN GROSS



                      Translation and Successorship



                      John Paul Twitchell died on September 17, 1971,

                      of arteriosclerotic heart disease. He "translated"

                      (Eck terminology for death) at approximately

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

                      scheduled to give a lecture on Eckankar.



                      [Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,

                      Ohio Department of Health,
                      Division of Vital Statistics.]



                      As with his birth, several stories have

                      cropped up concerning Twitchell's unexpected

                      death (translation). A few Eckists, including

                      Jim Peebles, believed that he was poisoned

                      to death; some state it was in Spain, others

                      claim in Czechoslovakia. No one seems quite

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

                      one-time President of Eckankar, reported seeing

                      Twitchell's soul carried out in a celestial cloud

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

                      instead that Twitchell had disobeyed the orders

                      of the Vairagi Masters and was carried away in

                      chains. Whichever story one believes--even if

                      one belongs to Eckankar--the fact remains that

                      an autopsy was performed and the coroner's findings

                      were that Twitchell died of a heart attack.

                      [Ibid.]



                      The Controversial "Five Year Plan"



                      When Twitchell first took over as the

                      "Living Eck Master" in 1965, he stated at

                      the very outset that he had been given a

                      "five-year" mission, and that after those

                      five years a new master would be appointed.

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

                      page 19.]



                      Yet when 1970 came around (five years

                      after his proposed statement), Twitchell told

                      his followers at the Fourth World-Wide Eckankar

                      Seminar that he had been given a five-year

                      extension by the Highest Lord, the Sugmad,



                      because the second Mahanta had failed his

                      preliminary testing. Therefore, he would continue

                      as the Mahanta until the third one was ready.

                      [Ibid.]



                      Nichols and Albrecht in their paper,

                      "Eckankar: The Ancient Science of Deception,"

                      have researched extensively Twitchell's self-

                      proposed "five-year plan." They consider it

                      to be a crucial point of controversy within

                      Eckankar. Below is the essence of their study.



                      By January 1971, the dispute within Eckankar

                      had reached such proportions, Twitchell had

                      to devote his entire letter of that month to

                      quelling the disturbance:



                      "There is a lot of idle chatter going on by

                      some chelas in Eck who make the unusual

                      claims that they are going to be the next

                      Mahanta, the Living Eck Master. But whatever

                      you hear about this can be taken with a grain

                      of salt, as the old expression goes it simply

                      isn't true."



                      Dr. Bluth attributes this change of plan

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

                      Bluth that he was training a child somewhere

                      on the West Coast to be the next Mahanta.

                      A lot of members of Eck began leaving the

                      fold at this time sensing a betrayal. Paul

                      did not quell the disturbance.



                      Even in May 1971, the storm was still raging.

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

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

                      addressed to the chelas, that once again states

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

                      ready for fifteen years.



                      Paul Twitchell never lived to carry out his five-year

                      extension that had been granted to him by the Order

                      of Vairagi, the ascended Eck Masters. He never lived

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

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



                      The Advent of Darwin Gross



                      "The next Mahanta is about fifteen years away.

                      He is now in training but where he is nobody

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

                      [--Paul Twitchell (January 1971)]

                      [Ibid., page 20.]



                      Sri Darwin Gross, Portland, Oregon Eck Mahadis,

                      and professional engineer was announced at

                      the Fifth World-Wide Seminar of Eckankar, to

                      be the new living Eck Master.

                      [Eckankar News Release (October 1971)]



                      The Eckankar News Release reads:



                      "The announcement was made before

                      an assembly of over a thousand followers

                      at the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross

                      known in spiritual circles as Dap Ren succeeds

                      Paul Twitchell, author 30 books, master and

                      founder of the present, world-wide Eckankar

                      movement who died (translated) in Cincinnati

                      Sept. 17, 1971."



                      It came as a surprise and a shock to many

                      Eckists when Paul Twitchell died suddenly

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

                      followers had expected their master to live

                      at least another five (if not fifteen) years.

                      It came as a bigger surprise and shock to

                      some of those same Eckists when Darwin

                      Gross was proclaimed the new "Living Eck

                      Master" a month after Twitchell's demise.

                      Shortly thereafter, several esteemed Eckists,

                      including Dr. Bluth (President of Eckankar

                      and Paul's personal doctor) and Edward Pecen

                      (Paul's personal bodyguard and confidante),

                      left Eckankar disclaiming Darwin Gross and

                      Gail Atkinson. [Edward Pecen, personal interview

                      with the author, November 1977.]



                      Part of the reason behind the astonishment

                      of many Eckists over the advent of Darwin Gross

                      was because he had been in Eckankar only since

                      1969. Nichols and Albrecht retell the controversy:



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

                      from Portland, Oregon, where Gross was immediately

                      granted a fifth initiation and briefed extensively for

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

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

                      large exodus from the movement at the time, including

                      Dr. Bluth and Dr. Wiggelsworth."



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

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

                      body and told her that Darwin Gross was to be his

                      successor. There was no more mention of20the child

                      that Twitchell supposedly had been training."



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

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



                      "Here one should remember that Paul

                      left no word as to who his successor should

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

                      interested in Eckankar in 1969, thus he was

                      an Eck Chela for less than a complete two

                      years at the time he was declared to be the

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

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





                      Darwin Gross was revealed as the new

                      "Living Eck Master" in Las Vegas, when

                      Gail Atkinson Twitchell, Paul's widow,

                      walked over to Darwin and presented him

                      with a blue carnation. Shortly thereafter,

                      to the bewilderment of a number of Eckists,

                      Gail and Darwin were married. However,

                      their marriage was short-lived. In early 1978,

                      Darwin sent a personal letter to a every Eck

                      chela in the world informing them that he

                      and Gail were getting divorced. A couple of

                      years later, Darwin got remarried, but it lasted

                      only a few months and he got the marriage

                      annulled. The ramifications of Darwin's divorce,

                      remarriage, and annulment on the membership

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

                      Yet, it can be presumed by the continued growth

                      of Eckankar in the United States that its ultimate


                      impact, like Darwin and Gail's marriage, was

                      nominal.



                      Gail Atkinson, according to the personal

                      letter sent to all Eckists, is still a member

                      of Eckankar and will continue to support the

                      activities of the Eck Master and the group.



                      Post-Twitchellian Eckankar



                      I have used the term "post-Twitchellian"

                      because I think it best emphasizes the crucial

                      importance of Paul Twitchell on Eckankar.



                      The growth of Eckankar, since of the death

                      of its founder, Paul Twitchell, and the advent

                      of Darwin Gross, has been remarkable. Although

                      Darwin has only authored a few books (including

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

                      compared to Twitchell's enormous output (over

                      sixty texts), Eckankar has increased its membership

                      almost triple.



                      The exact figures have not, as of yet,

                      been released by Eckankar. But in 1970

                      the membership was reported not to exceed

                      twenty-thousand. In 1991 it is estimated

                      that the number is somewhere between

                      forty-thousand and sixty-thousand core

                      members.



                      Since Darwin's acceptance of the mantleship,

                      Eckankar established its Headquarters in Menlo

                      Park--an impressive million dollar building.

                      [Now under the leadership of Harold Klemp,

                      the central headquarters is in Minneapolis,

                      Minnesota.] Yet the most enterprising of Darwin's

                      projects was to build a20spiritual center in Sedona,

                      Arizona. The project, however, had to be abandoned

                      due to lack of finances and a devastating lawsuit

                      taken against Eckankar over property rights in

                      the Sedona area.



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

                      1980) for more on the lawsuit taken over

                      Eckankar's land holdings.]



                      The Third Living Eck Master: Harold Klemp



                      In October of 1981, Darwin Gross passed

                      on the mantleship of Eckankar to Harold

                      Klemp, a long-standing Eckist. The event

                      took place in Los Angeles, California, at the

                      World-Wide Seminar. For many members,

                      the announcement came as an abrupt transition.

                      Apparently, to ease in the appointment of

                      Harold Klemp, Darwin Gross agreed to work

                      at the International Office in Menlo Park in

                      an advisory capacity. But all did not go well

                      and in 1983 a severe break occurred between

                      Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp, which led

                      to Gross' removal and subsequent excommunication

                      from the fold.



                      [See Part Five for a detailed examination

                      of this most unusual chapter in Eckankar's

                      history.]



                      Although we have examined briefly Paul

                      Twitchell's life and work up to to his death

                      and the successorship of Darwin Gross in

                      Eckankar, we have not, as of yet, studied

                      the most crucial and controversial aspect

                      of Eckankar: namely, the untold story of

                      Paul20Twitchell. The first two parts have

                      served as an introduction, for what follows

                      is the most intriguing, yet the most disputed,

                      aspect of Twitchell's life and work.



                      NOTES

                      1. Copy of Paul Twitchell's Death Certificate,

                      Ohio Department of Health, Division of Vital

                      Statistics.



                      2. Ibid.



                      3. Woodrow Nichols and Mark Albrecht,

                      op. cit., page 19.



                      4. Ibid.



                      5. Ibid., pages 20-21.



                      6. Ibid., page 20.



                      7. The Eckankar News Release reads: "The

                      announcement was made before an assembly

                      of over a thousand followers at the Flamingo

                      Hotel in Las Vegas. Gross known in spiritual

                      circles as Dap Ren succeeds Paul Twitchell,

                      author of 30 books, master and founder of

                      the present, world-wide Eckankar movement

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



                      8. Edward Pecen, personal interview with the

                      author, November 1977.



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

                      pages 23-24.



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



                      11. Gail Atkinson, according to the personal letter

                      sent to all Eckists, is still a member of Eckankar

                      and will continue to support the activities of the

                      Eck Master and the group.



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

                      I think it best emphasizes the crucial importance

                      of Paul Twitch
                      ell on Eckankar.



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

                      released by Eckankar. But in 1970 the membership

                      was reported not to exceed twenty-thousand. In

                      the early 1990's it is estimated that the number

                      is anywhere between twenty and forty thousand

                      core members.



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

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

                      land holdings.



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

                      Paul Twitchell (born John Paul Twitchell)

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

                      was an American spiritual writer, author

                      and founder of the group known as Eckankar.

                      He is accepted by the members of that group

                      as the Mahanta, or Living ECK Master of his

                      time. He directed the development of the

                      group through to the time of his death.

                      His spiritual name is believed by Eckists

                      (students of Eckankar) to be Peddar Zaskq.



                      Birth and early life



                      Much of Twitchell's life is shrouded in controversy

                      and uncertainty. His birth date has been disputed;

                      his widow Gail believed he was born in 1922, as

                      evident by his death certificate, but Twitchell himself

                      once claimed his birth year was 1912. Author Ford

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

                      based on census information.[1] The 1910 Census

                      indicates that Twitchell was six months old in April

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

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

                      Paul was probably born in Paducah, Kentucky, although

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



                      In his later life, Twitchell attended Murray State

                      College and Western Kentucky University in the

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

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

                      in the United States Navy during World War II,

                      and became a correspondent for Our Navy after

                      the war. He later went on to become a freelance

                      journalist. [5]



                      He also investigated a number of spiritual movements.

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

                      Church of Absolute Monism, an offshoot of Paramahamsa

                      Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship. He lived on

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

                      periodical, The Mystic Cross. He was asked to leave

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

                      with his first wife.



                      Later that same year, he was initiated into Kirpal

                      Singh into surat shabd yoga. He also became involved

                      in the Church of Scientology, becoming a member

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

                      to achieve the status of clear. [5]



                      In Seattle, he met Gail Atkinson. Twitchell later introduced

                      the woman to Kirpal Singh and later married her. They

                      moved to San Francisco i
                      n 1964, where Twitchell studied

                      surat shabd yoga without the assistance of Kirpal Singh.

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

                      wife, Gail Atkinson. He pursued a spiritual education

                      under the inspiration of Kirpal Singh, but after a postal

                      correspondence, during which Kirpal Singh critiqued

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

                      Twitchell then went on to study surat shabd yoga

                      independent of Kirpal Singh. [5]



                      Role in Eckankar



                      Some people believe it was actually Gail's idea that

                      Twitchell adapt some of his spiritual education into

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

                      in the early 1980s, publicly denouncing Eckankar as

                      an invention, although Twitchell had claimed the religion

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

                      his teachings were new, he eventually referred to them

                      as an ancient science that predated all other major religious

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

                      to Secret Worlds, Twitchell claimed he received aid in

                      uncovering Eckankar from the spirit of a predecessor

                      ECK master, Rebazar Tarzs. After the religion was founded

                      or uncovered, Twitchell then turned to writing for magazines.

                      In that position he gave out spiritual advice, claiming

                      to communicate with God about the problems of those

                      who wrote to him. He also attempted prophecy, predicting

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

                      Johnson would be elected US President for a second time.

                      Many of his answers were concluded with the words

                      "I HAVE SPOKEN!"[10]



                      Death



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

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

                      including the prominent member Louis Bluth, believed

                      his death was necessary; it was claimed Twitchell had

                      defied the ECK masters of the past. Additionally, many

                      Eckists came to question Twitchell's honesty after his

                      death, since he had predicted that he would continue

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

                      death was also problematic because Twitchell did not

                      have a chance to name his successor. His widow Gail

                      eventually selected Darwin Gross whom she later married.

                      According to Gail, Gross was indeed Paul Twitchell's

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

                      endorsement.[11]



                      This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-

                      contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been

                      reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)



                      prometheus wrote:

                      >

                      > Hello Etznab and All,

                      > I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                      > and found a lot of information. The following

                      > is one source that showed up on this search:

                      >

                      >

                      > Excerpted from a
                      letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                      > former President of Eckankar, one-time

                      > follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                      > personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                      > in 1971:

                      >

                      > Date: June 19, 1980

                      >

                      > My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                      > in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                      > [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                      > speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                      > Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                      > and I considered him honest.

                      >

                      > Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                      > him to believe she was going to leave him

                      > and he desperately wanted to keep her.

                      >

                      > So when she demanded more money and

                      > better living, he started to write things and

                      > copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                      > borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                      > copied a large share from them.

                      >

                      > I helped him write the Herb book and went

                      > to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                      > so basically much of the material is good

                      > because it is copied.

                      >

                      > I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                      > he had done and his answer was "since the

                      > author the book said it better than I could

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

                      > anyone credit as to where he got20it.

                      >

                      > As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                      > I don't think that a Master would divorce

                      > his wife and seek many other female companions.

                      >

                      > Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.

                      >

                      >

                      > etznab@ wrote:

                      > >

                      > >

                      > > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar

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

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

                      > > they would do with it).

                      > >

                      > > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection

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

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

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

                      > > body else should have known whether plagiar-

                      > > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether

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

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

                      > > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s

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

                      > > president of Eckankar?

                      > >

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

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

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

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

                      > >

                      > > Etznab

                      >
                    • mishmisha9
                      Holy Cow--what s this all about? I don t really get what your gripe is here concerning a few posts/posters? This site has been active for a few years now, it
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 6 3:31 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Holy Cow--what's this all about? I don't really get what
                        your gripe is here concerning a "few" posts/posters? This
                        site has been active for a few years now, it is clearly written
                        in the purpose statement what you can expect to find. It
                        is fairly open to opinions--some back and forth play. But
                        I don't understand what you are bothered by concerning some
                        posts and comments you haven't directly addressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Mish




                        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "paulji_teen" <tigeroverflow@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Open comments: (and this doesn't apply to all - the few doing it, should see themselves.)
                        >
                        > Yikes????!
                        >
                        > I greatly appreciate you all publishing the leads for where Paul did his research or other past details (setting aside the plagiarism issue)as it helps anchor the history for Eckankar. I don't know why EIO doesn't just bring this out - this might be where you could help - merge both - it's interesting history and the path likely would be stronger on the other side of all this coming out. It would 'clean up the foundation' of Eckankar - or whatever you want to call the teachings which have been brought out by many masters.
                        >
                        > Personally, I'm not concerned what vocabulary Paul wanted to use. One of the first things I did when I went to an international university was to ask the students who spoke Arabic, or Pushtu, or knew Sanskrit or were Sufis for insight into the Eck vocabulary. I loved learning about the source of the words and how they directly translated the words. For instance in Hinduism there (I'm not good on the spelling here) "Eckumkar"? The words Paul created or chose just helped "brand" Eckankar. Paul was coming from a business model - not that of a church.
                        >
                        > My bigger concern is asking you...
                        >
                        > 1)What is it - "costing you" - to hold on to your "attitude" - where you are 'at' on all this?
                        >
                        > 2) How are you - "benefiting" - by holding on to where you are at on all this?
                        >
                        > 3) Do you feel you are now in a competition with EIO and the path?
                        >
                        >
                        > It's a rhetorical question. Not looking for an answer.
                        >
                        > I'm hearing in some comments, something I sometimes do. My "winning formula" at times as an investigative researcher, is that I can slip into "righteous" /"smug" mode and instead of helping people learn something new and important, I sometimes cross the line and can sound bitter, or put people off...certainly not a way to 'win' people's insight, or consideration, or gain followers for my information. This is sort of mixed in of like a habit and complaint. (Ex: "here EIO goes again, blah, blah, blah..." and "why can't HK just do "x"?!)
                        >
                        > On any life situations like this, I'm getting better at catching myself and seeing - am I just being 'righteous'? Am I just whining and acting out like a 5-year-old who won't give up harping on something? Am I slipping from 'coming from love' to 'coming from being a brat'?
                        >
                        > I've had to learn to take a big step back and see that I don't have all the information, and I likely have human blindspots, and if I had more information (answers to questions I wouldn't think to even ask yet), maybe, just maybe I would see things differently.
                        >
                        > I am asking an open question and kindly - "what are your goals here?" You all are providing a lot of great historical information, so if your goal is to inform, you are doing a great job....but, to me, a couple of posters are starting to land as 1) angry and bitter vs. neutral about discussing "what was and is", 2)will you feel you have achieved a victory of sorts if more people leave after you have 'exposed' the information? 3) is there room for others to draw a different conclusion from their experiences while members, or after reading your information? Are you unattached to the outcome? Do you 'care' if some readers leave Eckankar, while others may elect to stay, and others continue to 'fence-sit'? Is there room for 'all' in this forum?
                        >
                        > I only know what I am reading from you...just saying some people's emotions are leading ahead of the facts in these past postings. Maybe I am the only one willing to say something here. To me, some people are crossing the 'line' perhaps? yes? in straying away from the sub-topic issue of plagiarism and discussing the more primary topic of history (fact), to now "attacking" Gail and Paul for their relationship or other (opinion) reasons. Picking on their relationship, to me, is coming down to a gossip level with neither of them here to comment - and is it even our 'business' why they got together?
                        >
                        > As far as I know, neither did anything considered illegal at that time by the people in a position to do something about it - and - if the plagiarism was a copyright issue, at the time, were any civil suits filed for this? So, if the original writers didn't care, or their estate -holdes didn't care, maybe it is possible that we can all let it go as well? Then, we can focus on the rich history, from even the other sources. It's sort of like, if you catch your neighbour's spouse stepping out on their spouse - then learn they have an open relationship - are you going to gossip about the cheating spouse? Is that spouse 'cheating' if the other spouse doesn't care? Thus my point with plagiarism - if the writers, or their estate-holders didn't care enough to file a civil suit or complaint, should we be 'judging this'?
                        > (and if you are aware of a lawsuit for this, post it; I think there were only rumours that Kirpal wasn't 'happy' about Tiger's Fang...)
                        >
                        > Just asking, if it feels 'right' - please, all of us, let's take a giant step back and get some perspective on our writing. The forum may be pushing people away who would greatly benefit from all the hard work in posting that has gone on here, and the history in the files.
                        >
                        > At the risk of paraphrasing Gail from one of her talks - she mentioned before speaking Paul had trained her to think: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? Before speaking her mind. (Hindu Kush Mountain Boys + 1 did a song about it, as well) Thus, do we know the truth about their relationship? Is it necessary to even concern ourselves with it? Is it kind to attack Gail? (Paul might be a little more fair game since he is gone now, but only as far as his delivery of the creation of Eckankar.)
                        >
                        > Like I said, I've certainly "done this, too" - and I've made requests of my friends to 'call me on it' when I go in this direction of landing as 'righteous', so I can back off and start recognizing it...and it has helped me to spot it in others, now, too.
                        >
                        > Anyway, for some of you this will "fit" and others may feel I am talking about you, when I am not. Still others, hopefully will see themselves and take my suggestions to heart.
                        >
                        > Can we focus on the history here - Paul, Path of the Masters, Sufism, wherever it all came from? To me, this is the interesting part. I want to learn the history, not the gossip.
                        >
                        > Kindly,
                        >
                        > Paulji_teen
                        >
                        > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I doubt that Paul wanted to hand Eckankar
                        > > over to anybody. I suspect he didn't trust it in
                        > > the hands of anybody else (didn't know what
                        > > they would do with it).
                        > >
                        > > Dr. Louis Bluth had a previous connection
                        > > to Radha Soami (or something), didn't he?
                        > > And isn't he on record saying that Paul read
                        > > some of his books? Mr Bluth, more than any-
                        > > body else should have known whether plagiar-
                        > > isms existed in Eckankar writings. Whether
                        > > Paul "borrowed" (and copied from) works of
                        > > other authors. What was Bluth's position in
                        > > Eckankar anyway? Besides being Paul T.s
                        > > personal doctor, wasn't Dr. Bluth the first
                        > > president of Eckankar?
                        > >
                        > > I wonder if they weren't "in on it" together
                        > > and that is why one was the Master and the
                        > > other the President. What I mean is, the two
                        > > must have known about "Eckankar's" origins.
                        > >
                        > > Etznab
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@>
                        > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 12:21 pm
                        > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] The WHY of Paul's "Mahanta"
                        > > Creation in 1969
                        > >
                        > > Â
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I was thinking about this 01/01/1969
                        > >
                        > > Mahanta event and recalled that
                        > >
                        > > Twitchell was having some trouble
                        > >
                        > > with a few disgruntled H.I.s around
                        > >
                        > > this timeframe. Paul had had a Five
                        > >
                        > > Year Plan where he was going to hand
                        > >
                        > > over the EK (LEM) leadership to another
                        > >
                        > > in 1970. However, as Eckankar began
                        > >
                        > > to take root and gr
                        > > ow Paul changed
                        > >
                        > > his mind about handing it over. Paul
                        > >
                        > > shared his new plans and the change
                        > >
                        > > outraged some of PT's H.I.s (8ths)
                        > >
                        > > who thought they were next in-line
                        > >
                        > > and would be taking over. They felt
                        > >
                        > > betrayed.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Add this internal EK conflict to the
                        > >
                        > > John-Rogers problems, (and competition
                        > >
                        > > with other groups), to the negative
                        > >
                        > > comments coming from the U.S. reps
                        > >
                        > > of Kirpal Singh's Ruhani Satsang
                        > >
                        > > group and voila'!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > PT now had the reasons and need
                        > >
                        > > to create the title of "Mahanta" that
                        > >
                        > > gave him complete control and, thus,
                        > >
                        > > placed himself heads above all others.
                        > >
                        > > This title and its definition he created
                        > >
                        > > made PT the King of the Hill. No one
                        > >
                        > > could challenge or question his decisions
                        > >
                        > > since they didn't have his divine powers
                        > >
                        > > or 360 degree view AND highest consciousness
                        > >
                        > > known to mankind!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > How dare anyone to question PT's new
                        > >
                        > > "Mahanta" authority (that he created for
                        > >
                        > > himself) since it was something they could
                        > >
                        > > know nothing about because they are
                        > >
                        > > of a lower initiation and of a lower plane
                        > >
                        > > of consciousness! Only the Mahanta, who
                        > >
                        > > sits at the right hand of Sugmad (God),
                        > >
                        > > has the authority to guide ALL Souls on
                        > >
                        > > the Inner planes. Perfect! And, since Eckists
                        > >
                        > > tend to limit their reading to Ek books,
                        > >
                        > > or to recommended materials, it's an easy
                        > >
                        > > ploy to pull off.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Anyway,=2
                        > > 0before Eckankar started to make
                        > >
                        > > big money Paul was as happy as a clam
                        > >
                        > > promoting himself, giving talks, and sharing
                        > >
                        > > his views of the "path." However, Paul had
                        > >
                        > > a young (32 years younger) wife (GAIL) to
                        > >
                        > > support and impress, and she had her needs
                        > >
                        > > too. She wanted a nice house for one thing.
                        > >
                        > > Thus, PT allowed her to start up the vitamin
                        > >
                        > > scheme where Eckists were members of her
                        > >
                        > > sales staff.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > All of this puts the whole thing, Eckankar
                        > >
                        > > and the "Mahanta," into perspective. That's
                        > >
                        > > why I said that this was a pivotal time and
                        > >
                        > > a complete change of direction for Eckankar.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Prometheus
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                        > >
                        > > I just had a few more observations
                        > >
                        > > and wanted to address some previous
                        > >
                        > > comments about Twitchell's plagiarisms.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Pji Teen:
                        > >
                        > > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                        > >
                        > > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                        > >
                        > > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                        > >
                        > > would have anchored these passages?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > P-
                        > >
                        > > I doubt that this happened since there
                        > >
                        > > are multiple books that Twit plagiarized.
                        > >
                        > > And, Twit would give Rebazar, or other
                        > >
                        > > EK Masters as his "source" rather than
                        > >
                        > > admit to the truth of his theft.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > For instance, Twitchell gives Fubbi as
                        > >
                        > > his "source" for the Shariyat Book One,
                        > >
                        > > and Yaubl as his "source" for Book Two.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Klemp came up with the Astral Library
                        > > 0A
                        > > story to explain away the accusations
                        > >
                        > > of plagiarism. However, he also shot
                        > >
                        > > himself in the foot by pointing out that
                        > >
                        > > these Two EK Holy Books are NO higher
                        > >
                        > > than Astral Plane teachings!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Pji Teen:
                        > >
                        > > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                        > >
                        > > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                        > >
                        > > to footnote passages?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > P-
                        > >
                        > > It's strange that PT would give Bible
                        > >
                        > > quotes and reference the source in
                        > >
                        > > the same text. He also did this with
                        > >
                        > > other writers just as Klemp does. But,
                        > >
                        > > PT doesn't do this with regard to The
                        > >
                        > > Path of the Masters. How many footnoted
                        > >
                        > > pages are there in ALL of PT's works?
                        > >
                        > > I'm looking in the back of my combined
                        > >
                        > > Shariyats (Books 1&2) and I don't see
                        > >
                        > > any references! Thus, he'll give it as
                        > >
                        > > he writes it. Therefore, it was an
                        > >
                        > > intentional omission when PT didn't
                        > >
                        > > mention "The Path of the Masters"
                        > >
                        > > when he uses quotes from this book.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > However, I must say that Twit was sly,
                        > >
                        > > but those are the credentials of a con-
                        > >
                        > > man. As I pointed out in the beginning
                        > >
                        > > of CH. 2 of Johnson's "Path" PT used
                        > >
                        > > a quote word for word in his "The Far
                        > >
                        > > Country" page 131. Here's a partial
                        > >
                        > > quote. "Voltaire has said that religion
                        > >
                        > > is the solace of the weak. Nietzsche
                        > >
                        > > has repeated it in substance." Now,
                        > >
                        > > it seems that Julian P. Johnson was
                        > >
                        > > paraphrasing Voltaire and Nietzsche,
                        > >
                        > > and
                        > > , thus, didn't quote them. However,
                        > >
                        > > Twitchell took Johnson's exact words
                        > >
                        > > and thoughts. Twit stole his writing
                        > >
                        > > style and his creativity! This is unethical!
                        > >
                        > > Isn't a true "Master" supposed to have
                        > >
                        > > ethics? See, this is why I couldn't any
                        > >
                        > > longer give it (Eckankar or Klemp) the
                        > >
                        > > benefit of the doubt since it is all based
                        > >
                        > > upon fraud. Look at the Five Passions
                        > >
                        > > and the Five Virtues of Eckankar too!
                        > >
                        > > That's a distortion of other religious
                        > >
                        > > teachings including Ruhani Satsang
                        > >
                        > > and Radhasoami. Where does PT or HK
                        > >
                        > > give this "source." The excuse/con is
                        > >
                        > > that It either came from the "Astral
                        > >
                        > > Library" or it came from the ECK.
                        > >
                        > > Catch-22!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Pji Teen:
                        > >
                        > > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                        > >
                        > > first. One of my areas of interest is
                        > >
                        > > tracking current plagiarism in media
                        > >
                        > > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                        > >
                        > > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                        > >
                        > > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                        > >
                        > > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                        > >
                        > > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                        > >
                        > > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                        > >
                        > > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                        > >
                        > > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > P-
                        > >
                        > > IMO calling Paul a "journalist" is a
                        > >
                        > > stretch of the imagination. He was
                        > >
                        > > a hack. Most of the things that he
                        > >
                        > > wrote didn't require research into
                        > >
                        > > many facts and when it did Twit
                        > >
                        > > would often make up his
                        > > own.
                        > >
                        > > Track his Orion plagiarisms. This
                        > >
                        > > had to do with recycling old stories
                        > >
                        > > and making some minor changes
                        > >
                        > > to disguise them. And, yes, this did
                        > >
                        > > carry over to his ECKankar writings.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Pji Teen:
                        > >
                        > > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                        > >
                        > > coming through -- we've all grown
                        > >
                        > > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                        > >
                        > > many times your parents told you
                        > >
                        > > something that probably has been
                        > >
                        > > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                        > >
                        > > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                        > >
                        > > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                        > >
                        > > positive purpose in the world.
                        > >
                        > > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                        > >
                        > > if you are really thirsty - do you
                        > >
                        > > really care where the water came
                        > >
                        > > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > P-
                        > >
                        > > I think most of our parents told us
                        > >
                        > > recycled stories about Santa Claus
                        > >
                        > > and the Easter Bunny, or old wives
                        > >
                        > > tales... or urban legends. PT wrote
                        > >
                        > > for Ripley's Believe it or Not! Why
                        > >
                        > > is it that PT's Eckankar "water"
                        > >
                        > > is safe to drink? Some impurities
                        > >
                        > > are tasteless and show up over time.
                        > >
                        > > As I pointed out once before... the
                        > >
                        > > big pivot point for Twitchell was
                        > >
                        > > when he created the "Mahanta"
                        > >
                        > > title for himself in January 1969.
                        > >
                        > > This is when PT placed an enormous
                        > >
                        > > and unattainable gap between
                        > >
                        > > himself and his followers. He did
                        > >
                        > > this in order to out-do John-
                        > >
                        > > Rogers (a follower who left EK
                        > >
                        > > and started20his own religion by
                        > >
                        > > using PT's discourses etc.). And,
                        > >
                        > > Twit wanted to place himself heads
                        > >
                        > > above every other "Master" and/or
                        > >
                        > > critic (including Kirpal) by placing
                        > >
                        > > himself in a position beyond reproach.
                        > >
                        > > After all, how can anyone criticize,
                        > >
                        > > even, a self-proclaimed GOD without
                        > >
                        > > having the highest "God-Knowledge?"
                        > >
                        > > More Catch-22!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Prometheus
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ****
                        > >
                        > > Hello Paulji teen and All,
                        > >
                        > > Interesting comments! I can recall
                        > >
                        > > that someone wrote that Paul was
                        > >
                        > > told by Orion Press not to submit
                        > >
                        > > anymore articles to them because
                        > >
                        > > he had been caught plagiarizing.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Now, this whole episode took place
                        > >
                        > > long before Twitchell created Eckankar.
                        > >
                        > > Thus, Paul had a heads-up that his
                        > >
                        > > plagiarizing was both an unethical
                        > >
                        > > practice and an illegal behaviour.
                        > >
                        > > The magazine could have been sued
                        > >
                        > > and could have lost all credibility
                        > >
                        > > with their readers by having to place
                        > >
                        > > retractions in future editions.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > However, this incident didn't seem
                        > >
                        > > to bother Twitchell one iota. He couldn't
                        > >
                        > > help but lie and deceive with another's
                        > >
                        > > words and thoughts. I've listed the quotes,
                        > >
                        > > for comparison, and there are more in
                        > >
                        > > the ESA LINKS section. However, as I've,
                        > >
                        > > also, pointed out PT copied the "Dogma"
                        > >
                        > > of other religions as well. Primarily, Paul
                        > >
                        > > copied Ruhani Satsang (his religious path
                        > >
                        > > from 1955-65) and used "The Path of the
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Masters" as his handbook to create his
                        > >
                        > > "new" religious sect... Eckankar.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The thing that Paul did, creating a new
                        > >
                        > > sect, is S.O.P. (standard operating procedure)
                        > >
                        > > for Indian (Eastern) Religions! When a
                        > >
                        > > Master dies and doesn't directly appoint
                        > >
                        > > a successor, or there is a disagreement
                        > >
                        > > with the choice (another has more
                        > >
                        > > followers, etc.) then another sect/faction
                        > >
                        > > is formed. This is how new (major)
                        > >
                        > > religions are created too! Local, Christian,
                        > >
                        > > Churches do the same! However, Paul,
                        > >
                        > > Darwin, and, now, Klemp have hidden
                        > >
                        > > the true origins of Eckankar's Dogma.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Yes, I had to use ethical standards and
                        > >
                        > > guidelines, too, on writing papers. MLA
                        > >
                        > > was one standard and there are others for
                        > >
                        > > writers and researchers. When I got into
                        > >
                        > > research papers for my major the standards
                        > >
                        > > became much more stringent on footnoting
                        > >
                        > > and everything else.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > However, many of these standards concerning
                        > >
                        > > morals and ethics have been around for decades.
                        > >
                        > > Does 'thou shall not steal' sound familiar? Paul
                        > >
                        > > should have known about these ethical standards
                        > >
                        > > since he was an avid reader (or skimmer) and
                        > >
                        > > a writer. And, PT loved to quote the Christian
                        > >
                        > > Bible as does Klemp! Gail, who was a former
                        > >
                        > > librarian, was Paul's secretary and second in
                        > >
                        > > command. Gail certainly knew something about
                        > >
                        > > ethics and plagiarism.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > However, when greed becomes the focus
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > and one needs to churn out books, for the
                        > >
                        > > new members, in order to makeup for lost
                        > >
                        > > time, then ethics get placed on the back
                        > >
                        > > burner. And, Paul had a track record for
                        > >
                        > > embellishing the truth. Even Klemp has
                        > >
                        > > pointed this out on Eckankar.org. Paul
                        > >
                        > > was doing his lying and self-promotion
                        > >
                        > > about himself and his travels at age 27,
                        > >
                        > > in 1935, to get into Who's Who in Kentucky
                        > >
                        > > while in that same year, 1935, is claiming
                        > >
                        > > to have made a trip to India. HK states that
                        > >
                        > > PT met Rebazar, in 1954, on his "second"
                        > >
                        > > trip to India! Except, PT's "first" trip in 1935
                        > >
                        > > (at 27 years old) was a lie... proven by Klemp's
                        > >
                        > > own research into these dates! Klemp just
                        > >
                        > > didn't see that he provided the dates that
                        > >
                        > > prove that Twit was lying about meeting
                        > >
                        > > Rebazar! HK can't connect the dots either!
                        > >
                        > > LOL!
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Prometheus
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > paulji_teen wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > This topic seems to keep coming up...
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I can only speak to my own experience.
                        > >
                        > > In the 1960s in my first experience
                        > >
                        > > writing papers, in school I was taught
                        > >
                        > > one rule about plagiarism and footnoting.
                        > >
                        > > By the time I hit high school, the rules
                        > >
                        > > for this had slightly changed. By university,
                        > >
                        > > there were even more rules related to
                        > >
                        > > without giving credit, etc.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I don't know if the plagiarism laws were
                        > >
                        > > shifting, or, as students we were just
                        > >
                        > > getting more clarity fro
                        > > m professors.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Paul may have thought it was okay to
                        > >
                        > > list short passages. What I don't know --
                        > >
                        > > are you finding like full pages, or full
                        > >
                        > > chapters, that word for word are identical?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Secondly, is there a possibility that when
                        > >
                        > > Illuminated Way Press went to print they
                        > >
                        > > didn't publish the endnotes, which maybe
                        > >
                        > > would have anchored these passages?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Thirdly, were the copyrights expired
                        > >
                        > > on the earlier works, so he didn't think
                        > >
                        > > to footnote passages?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Today's research writers, I think, are
                        > >
                        > > more careful about plagiarism as there
                        > >
                        > > are more lawsuits and more legal and
                        > >
                        > > collegiate focus on educating writers about
                        > >
                        > > plagiarism.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > As a side note: Paul was a journalist,
                        > >
                        > > first. One of my areas of interest is
                        > >
                        > > tracking current plagiarism in media
                        > >
                        > > and journalism - it is rampant! The
                        > >
                        > > disregard for fact-checking, and just
                        > >
                        > > recycling of old stories is mind-boggling.
                        > >
                        > > Maybe, even in Paul's journalism days,
                        > >
                        > > pre - Eckankar, this was a normal way
                        > >
                        > > to do things, as well - and it just carried
                        > >
                        > > over into the Eck writings? I don't
                        > >
                        > > know, and it doesn't make it 'right'.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > My loyalty to Paul's intent is probably
                        > >
                        > > coming through -- we've all grown
                        > >
                        > > up with plagiarism. (Think about how
                        > >
                        > > many times your parents told you
                        > >
                        > > something that probably has been
                        > >
                        > > recited for generations?) I'm not so
                        > > =0
                        > > A
                        > > ready to "shoot the messenger".
                        > >
                        > > Eckankar has and does serve a mostly
                        > >
                        > > positive purpose in the world.
                        > >
                        > > Maybe a risk at another analogy -
                        > >
                        > > if you are really thirsty - do you
                        > >
                        > > really care where the water came
                        > >
                        > > from, as long as it is safe to drink?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Paulji_teen
                        > >
                        >
                      • prometheus_973
                        It s interesting to take another look at these 1980 comments. In May or June of 1980 Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from Darwin who Bluth says was not
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 7 10:19 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It's interesting to take another look at these
                          1980 comments. In May or June of 1980
                          Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from
                          Darwin who Bluth says was not a "Master"
                          (LEM) based upon his lustful behaviour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Prometheus


                          prometheus wrote:

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


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

                          Date: June 19, 1980

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
                        • etznab@aol.com
                          Here is another Eckankar quote from The Far Country along with one from The Path of the Masters. [Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell] The whole universe is
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 7 6:39 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Here is another Eckankar quote from The
                            Far Country along with one from The Path of
                            the Masters.

                            [Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            I wonder. Can it be both?

                            Any thoughts on this?

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

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

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

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

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

                            I always thought that was kind of curious.



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

                            Etznab

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

                             






                            It's interesting to take another look at these

                            1980 comments. In May or June of 1980

                            Klemp was receiving his 8th initiation from

                            Darwin who Bluth says was not a "Master"

                            (LEM) based upon his lustful behaviour.



                            Apparently, Darwin had already "fallen

                            from Grace" during the time Klemp was

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

                            12th initiations, and the Rod of ECK Power,

                            (the LEM position) from him! That explains

                            a lot! Also, in 1980 and 1981 Klemp had

                            Darwin meet him in the Sound Proofed

                            Dark Room at the ESC that Klemp worked

                            in daily in order to discuss the eventual

                            transition of power. [HK's "Soul Travelers

                            of the Far Country," CH. 7]



                            However, we also see that Twitchell was

                            no "Master" either! Bluth states that he

                            helped Paul to write "HERBS, The Magic

                            Healers," and that Paul borrowed his

                            Radha Soami books. I'm
                            certain that

                            "The Path of the Masters" was one of

                            these books. Twitchell's "The Far Country"

                            is copyrighted in 1970, and there is a

                            word for word quote on page 131 that

                            was taken from the beginning of Chapter

                            2 from "The Path of the Masters."



                            Thus, a spiritual "ECK Master" of the

                            highest Order should, also, have integrity!

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

                            consciousness... right! One Law, from the

                            Old Testament (of the Bible), states that

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

                            supposedly, have even higher and more

                            evolved standards far surpassing these

                            early basic laws, as well as, early "copyright

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

                            of ethical behaviour and of right and wrong.

                            Paul was wrong and so is Klemp. Thus,

                            their negative actions and disregard of

                            truth and openness shows that they are

                            deceitful and of the KAL consciousness.



                            And, there's more information that is

                            taken from "Path." Both Twitchell and,

                            now, Klemp have made it their own and

                            a part of the ECK Dogma without giving

                            credit to the original source.



                            Here's the quote from "The Path of the

                            Masters" CH.6:



                            "A rule laid down by the noble Buddha

                            is a most excellent one for all men to

                            follow. He said that if you propose to

                            speak, always ask yourself--Is it true,


                            is it necessary, is it kind?"



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

                            1998 EK Lexicon (pg.159)], about

                            these words of wisdom coming from

                            the Buddha, except, HK (also) omits

                            that the quote came from the Buddha:



                            "path of the trinity. Three questions

                            to ask oneself when in doubt about

                            an action: Is it true? Is it necessary?

                            Is it kind?"



                            Recently a poster, on this site, mentioned

                            that she heard Gail give a talk (1971?)

                            where she gave Twitchell (her husband)

                            credit for this quote and, of course, Gail

                            didn't mention that these thoughts / rules

                            had originally come from the Buddha!



                            Gail may have been innocent about knowing

                            the original source (Buddha) of this one quote,

                            but she wasn't innocent with regards to

                            Twitchell's other plagiarisms and religious

                            scam. Paul states in "Difficulties Of Becoming

                            the LEM" that Gail encouraged him to share

                            his religious philosophy and compiled notes

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

                            somewhat.



                            It was that West Coast New Age thinking

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

                            of how other groups/cults got their start.

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

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

                            these Eastern teachings with "living masters"

                            (Radhasoami/Ruhani) were merely altered

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

                            Twitchell's exaggerations of truth by 'twisting

                            facts.' It's obvious that Klemp has nothing

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

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

                            master to read or to experience this. Just

                            imagine and create your own reality as Soul!



                            Prometheus



                            prometheus wrote:



                            Hello All,

                            I Googled, DR. BLUTH AND PAUL TWITCHELL

                            and found a lot of information. The following

                            is one source that showed up on this search:



                            Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth,

                            former President of Eckankar, one-time

                            follower of Sawan Singh, and Paul Twitchell's

                            personal doctor when the Eck leader died

                            in 1971:



                            Date: June 19, 1980



                            My wife and I opened the first Eck class

                            in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul

                            [Twitchell] many times and was the main

                            speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away.

                            Paul was a sincere student in the beginning

                            and I considered him honest.



                            Problems between him and his wife Gail led

                            him to believe she was going to leave him

                            and he desperately wanted to keep her.



                            So when she demanded more money and

                            better living, he started to write things and

                            copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell]

                            borrowed my books on Radha Soami and

                            copied a large shar
                            e from them.



                            I helped him write the Herb book and went

                            to Riverside University and took Sanskrit,

                            so basically much of the material is good

                            because it is copied.



                            I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what

                            he had done and his answer was "since the

                            author the book said it better than I could

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

                            anyone credit as to where he got it.



                            As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned,

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

                            I don't think that a Master would divorce

                            his wife and seek many other female companions.



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