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

Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)

Expand Messages
  • etznab18
    Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why? Some select trivia
    Message 1 of 14 , May 5 7:50 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"

      Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original links/threads for complete context.)

      To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is still a long post though.

      (1)

      Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online book:

      [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day I [Doug Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in the box. It was a personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his home. It sounded like Paul was experimenting again. This time he was trying to create an audio version of something like Dialogues With The Master.

      The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs. Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely sound, saying something like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicking the voice of Rebazar Tarzs! The tape went on to give a discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic. This was so long ago I can't remember much more than that, but the tape was amazing to me, and I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it today.

      So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had ever heard anything about it before. He immediately became interested, told me that it was news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I told Darwin that I had left it in my apartment with all the other tapes I was sorting through, but I would run home to get it for him. I immediately jumped up to head for my car.

      It was at this point that Darwin said something that left me with a deep impression. He saw that I was hurrying toward my car in my desire to get the tape for him, and he said, "Take your time." He then paused, as if he was saying something very important, and he added, "There is never any reason to rush." [... .]

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

      (2)

      July 2001:

      "The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT my invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it. - [David Lane?]

      Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't David show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought that? Kirpal makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's Fang, which in its first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but was changed to Rebazar Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967. [....]" - [Doug Marman?]

      http://tinyurl.com/4x3kl25

      (3)

      July 2003:

      Interesting, Doug. I have mixed feeling about the "plagerism". For thos most part, I see the copied info as generally either common themes or insignificant fillers. However, I find the quotes where he claimed to have come from Rebazar to have been done in really poor taste... and perhaps not a great move in his part ???
      What are your on that stuff ?
      I agree with you that plagiarism is not the real issue. I think the fact that many felt The Far Country was a transcription of an actual dialog means this matter of plagiarism shows them a very different picture. It means the words really came from Paul's pen, with help from other authors, and not word for word from Rebazar Tarzs.
      As for poor taste, I think it looks a lot differently now. I can look back at some of my early writings and see strong similarities with Paul's books. He influenced me significantly. Let's say I decided to leave ECKANKAR and start writing for some other teacher. Let's say I took some of my old writings and just re-worked them to fit with the new teachings. Now, somebody eventually sees that my writings are almost word for word from some of Paul's writings. Now it looks like I was "stealing" from ECKANKAR, and that the new teacher is just a spin-off.
      It's all a matter of perspective.
      I think Paul was clearly influenced by Johnson's books. He obviously liked them enough that he covered a lot of the same material, and even used very similar words in many cases, when he wrote The Far Country. However, he was also writing this at the same time as he handed Kirpal Singh his first draft of The Tiger's Fang. If Kirpal had not rejected his efforts, I believe Kirpal's students would have looked at The Far Country far differently.
      On the other hand, I don't really know what Paul was thinking when he wrote this book. I do like The Far Country far more than Johnson's books, so I'm glad he wrote it. However, I do think that it is a serious negative to his popularity in the public sector. I'm not sure Paul would mind too much about that. - Doug.

      http://tinyurl.com/7stz3vz

      (4) February 2004:

      "[...] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck Master were saying them? Yes. [....]"

      http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=268&page=168#m264

      (5)

      March 2007:

      [...] Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual account?
      Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
      I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, but have taken The Far Country as something different.
      So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
      I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
      These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.
      In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it was really like. [...] Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the later, wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why worry if his facts are not exactly right?

      http://tinyurl.com/7tuzbwd

      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer <jepfeiffer@...> wrote:
      >
      > Prometheus,
      >  
      > You have no idea how comforting your comments are to me.  It gives me peace of mind to know that others did have them too.  Thank you for being such a wise soul.
      >  
      > Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary?  To whom did he tell this and why?  The circus of eckankar is mind boggling.  The more I hear from experienced eckist, the harder it is to believe that it can stand as an organization.  It appears like a house of cards.  Do you think more people are becoming disenchanted with eckankar and do you think the org is losing ground?  I have read they exaggerate their membership by counting anyone who has ever attended an eck event.  Any ideas?
      >  
      > Thanks
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
      > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)
      > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:33 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      > Hello Janice and All,
      > Interesting. I think I'll
      > share some comments
      > to your insights below.
      >
      > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
      > "Prometheus,
      >
      > Now that is very interesting.
      >
      > I, myself, felt I suffered some kind of an attack about a year or so before I got out. I believe it happened because I just wasn't falling in line like a good little eckist but maybe I was robbed of energy. My experience was that I was just before falling asleep one night and I heard a loud voice which used a word I couldn't remember later. I know it started with a P.
      >
      > Anyway, as this word was being shouted, I got a jolt of some kind and then I felt a wave of nausea and weakness. This wasn't a dream but I was only half awake. The voice I heard wasn't wimpy sounding klemp. It was a strong male voice. A few nights later, I did dream that an ugly looking little troll like figure came into my room and stood gazing at me through the metal barks on the foot board of my bed. In my dream I told it to get out now and never come back. It did.
      >
      > Then I started having dreams that portrayed the eck master rebazar as being a thief and a con artist. The experience was weird and the dreams were even more so. While an early eckist, I guess rebazar was my favorite character. He seemed the most spiritual at the time. I found it very confusing to have these dreams.
      >
      > I began to realize how stale my life had become. I was in a long term relationship with a high initiate. I started asking the questions that got me yelled at by the area resa. I had read nothing but eck teachings since becoming an eckist. I thought while an ekist there was true beauty in the teachings."
      >
      > ME (Prometheus): I know that
      > many of us have had similar
      > experiences of being attacked
      > by negative entities and having
      > to defend ourselves. In this case
      > your RESA was, also, one of these
      > negative beings. Too bad you
      > couldn't protect yourself from
      > them, but it's deceptive when
      > one has placed trust in a RESA
      > by assuming they are always
      > positive and always on your side.
      > They are as closed minded and
      > defensive as is any religionist
      > when protecting their dogma
      > from too much scrutiny.
      >
      > "And so I began to see eckankar with all its manipulation and how it attempts to break a person down. I walked away and I started reading all the things I would not read as an eckist. It took me about another year to start feeling like a normal person. I must say that the attack seemed to be aimed at my brain and not my heart as these great ones of eckankar claim in theirs writings. It didn't appear to be a positive thing and I wondered if an attempt had been made to harm me since I wasn't conforming properly. I didn't insult people or even respond to them with rudeness but I did maintain my right to privacy on many occasions when asked personal questions. Privacy doesn't seem to be respected in eckankar and a lot of eckist were usually telling stories about the personal lives of other eckist."
      >
      > ME: Yes. One has to give-in and give-up.
      > Some say, Let-go and Let-God. But, with
      > ECKankar they will say to remain skeptical
      > until you can "prove it" to yourself. But,
      > the catch is that there's a time limit for
      > being skeptical. True, when one seeks
      > the "Truth" via introspection and uses
      > meditation/contemplation one will change
      > and see with new eyes, but that's not due
      > to any fake Mahanta or borrowed and
      > tweaked Sant Mat dogma. One will naturally
      > dream and imagine all sorts of things
      > when attention is placed upon these
      > areas and topics. That's what Twitchell
      > and every other conman knew and uses
      > and what Klemp continues to use as
      > a hook. It's a slight-of-hand deception
      > the magician uses while the viewer's
      > attention is distracted elsewhere.
      >
      >
      > "I think some higher part of me was showing me the truth behind eckankar after the attack but I never associated the experience with demons. I am not sure demons are real and separate entities. I have always felt that a lot of Christians will declare anything evil or demonic that threatens their views so if I read what they have to say, I dismiss a lot of it. If evil didn't exist then Christianity wouldn't have a reason to exist. This article starts out like most religious hipe but they did make a few good points about the destructive nature of eckankar."
      >
      > ME: I'm, also, not so sure that demons
      > are real. It could very well be that demons
      > are metaphors for those things that bother
      > and bind us to negativity, fear, self-doubt
      > and even to self-loathing. Actually, isn't
      > all religious dogma full of hidden metaphors?
      > This is where the fanatics and the fundamentalists
      > have problems since they tend to pick and
      > choose what is easy for them to believe
      > since they tend to be more simple-minded
      > and tend to see most everything in literal,
      > narrow, terms.
      >
      >
      > "I honestly believe that klemp thinks he is the living eck master and he thinks he is doing a lot of good. I think he is just the puppet for the more scheming higher ups. I really don't s
      > see anything really outstanding about klemp at all. That was my biggest problem with eckankar. When I would do the gazing at the mahanta thing using klemps picture, all I could see was a sickly looking man. He even looked miserable. I saw no power. He wasn't charismatic. He wasn't very intelligent and he had no creative ability that I could see. He like twitchell seemed to need to draw from sources outside of eckankar for spiritual inspiration and his attempts were to me at times comical. As long as he was being told he was the great eck master, he probably was easily controlled by the gang of money hounds making up corporate eckankar."
      >
      > ME: Klemp is the Higher Up.
      > He had the by-laws changed
      > after he took over from D.G.
      > and neither the President nor
      > the EK Board has any voting
      > authority. Only Klemp can hire
      > and fire. The local Satsang
      > Societies and local Boards have
      > been set up the same (As Above).
      > Thus, the RESAs can hire and
      > fire the local Presidents and
      > Board members and the votes
      > of Board members carry no
      > authority! The RESA has the
      > sole authority, unless, a higher
      > authority at the ESC steps in.
      > However, when this is done
      > it is always with the approval
      > of Klemp and under his direction.
      >
      >
      > "It is true that eckankar gets rid of things that were written by twitchell and others that the average person would think is not spiritual. I never heard of twitchells written rantings about his great power and influence so by the time I was in, I guess it had been removed from print."
      >
      > ME: "Difficulties Of Becoming The Living
      > ECK Master" was the best book written
      > depicting Twitchell's egomaniacal rants.
      > There were three interviews done around
      > June 1971 while PT was the full blown
      > self-proclaimed Mahanta. What's amazing
      > is that after all of these years he's still
      > lying about his past. Klemp has stated
      > on Eckankar.org that Twit was "exaggerating"
      > and "twisting facts" to get into Kentucky's
      > Who's Who and had never traveled all that
      > far from home. Yet, Twitchell (in this June,
      > 1971 interview), is saying he was almost
      > 16 years old when he, first, went from
      > Paris to India, with his sister, to be with
      > Sudar Singh. There are more examples
      > that are even more outlandish. Paul's
      > comments about how he confused things
      > and screwed up paperwork so that he
      > could take it easy during the start of
      > WWII showed a level of subversion and
      > sabotage that even the Nazis couldn't
      > accomplish!
      >
      > "I've never talked about the experience before because I found it so confusing and during that time, I wondered if I had gotten a little bit nuts to even have those things. Any feed back from more knowledgeable eckist would be greatly appreciated. I don't know about demons but it was strange and enough to cause the process of breaking the chains of eckankar for me. They need more slaves to bring in recruits for more money and more influence. I wasn't doing that. I am thankful that although I did perform tasks for the local area, I did not drag a single soul into eckankar. Well, not that I know of anyway. Guess I wasn't a very good eckiest. I wasn't capable of it and I am ashamed of myself for ever being a member. Coming out of it, I think most people feel dumb, gullible and used."
      >
      > ME: I think that we all have to get
      > over the guilt and shame of being
      > tricked. Look at all of those who
      > belong to a religion and donate
      > time and money in order to get
      > their "feel good" fix. Religions
      > are types of opiates... Eckankar
      > too! People need to believe in
      > something that can give them
      > hope and to help them to maintain
      > a positive outlook. And, conmen
      > know what people want and need.
      > Attitude is, also, important but
      > there's a fine line between being
      > positive and being delusional.
      > Sometimes it's difficult to know
      > where to draw the line and some
      > of us have more difficulty with
      > seeing the good versus seeing
      > the bad. However, I don't think
      > that seeing the glass half-empty
      > is always wrong, but it does present
      > more of a challenge to overcome.
      >
      > "Something else kind of made me realize that eckankar wasn't healthy. I am by no means saying that all eckist have mental problems. Some of them had a great need to talk to some one. I listened a lot. Anyway, I was told by some eckist that they were diagnosed with severe mental conditions previously or since becoming eckist. But why couldn't this great living eck master help them over come these things or at least help them adjust better to the physical world? If the living eck master had to go nuts to find his spiritual power does that mean it is necessary to become a spiritually enlightened being? Why does klemp describe his psychotic episode as something spiritual, when no one with a sound mind or high spiritual powers, would remove their clothes in public? Not in my opinion anyway. Is it because after being proclaimed the living eck master, it might be revealed by the media and so it was woven into a spiritual experience as kind of a necessary
      > ordeal? Did he go psychotic because he was attempting to follow in twitchells shoes and he mentally duplicated twithells experience?"
      >
      > ME: I don't believe that Twitchell
      > ever needed to jump off a bridge
      > and do a strip tease at an airport
      > and choose jail or a mental institution
      > in order to "find God." Besides, Twit
      > was a liar up to the moment of his
      > untimely death and, thus, was not
      > a "spiritual being." It was all about
      > him. Besides, many people have
      > done stupid things when confused
      > with life and have sought "spiritual
      > solutions." If one chose to, one could
      > claim that their mental missteps
      > and episodes were "spiritual
      > experiences" as Klemp has done.
      > Klemp is merely doing a 20/20
      > hindsight, and PR rewrite, to
      > excuse his mental confusion.
      > After all, HK's the leader of a
      > church and has to be above
      > and beyond reproach. It's a
      > pretend game where he has
      > to, partially, buy into the hype
      > in order to seem authentic.
      >
      > "I did meet some eckist that I still remember with fondness and who appeared to be warm caring human beings. Some appeared to be well adjusted people. Also, I just read a posting by an eckist on this article that sounded remarkably insightful and loving. Maybe it is possible to grow in eckankar."
      >
      > ME: I, too, know and remember some
      > H.I.s whom I like. They are nice people...
      > as long as they don't know who I am.
      > That could/would change I'm sure.
      > They would feel betrayed and insulted
      > and I could understand that, however,
      > that, too, would be a "spiritual" test!
      > To "grow in eckankar?" Sure, but it's
      > not due to Eckankar or because of
      > inner guidance by a fake mahanta.
      > That crap just gets in the way and
      > causes more codependency. Any
      > growth or realization leading to
      > an expanded awareness is learned
      > and earned by the individual. It's
      > their own personal and private
      > relationship to the Holy Spirit or
      > whatever one wants to call this
      > divine essence, or not, that leads
      > to a divine knowingness and to
      > contentment!
      >
      > "I had one eckist tell me that he didn't care where the teachings came from because they worked for him. I had conversations with several high initiates who were aware of the deception in eckankar and simply accepted it without any attempts to rationalize it. It appeared that the only truth that did exist for a lot of them was what ever seemed relevant at the time. One female told me, you take the parts you can use and toss the rest. I guess the idea was that with the teachings being so vast, it was up to a person to decide for themselves which ones to keep. Also, if twitchell made a habit of lying then truth wasn't anything concrete at all but something to be manipulated as needed. Well, that is what I got any from conversations. I think this concept corrodes the moral fiber of a person. Lies should not be knowingly condoned."
      >
      > ME: Actually, accepting Eckankar
      > while knowing about the deceptions
      > and lies is rationalizing. It's like,
      > if it's not broke why fix it? Or,
      > why throw the baby out with the
      > (dirty) bath water? Nothing, and
      > nobody (Klemp), in the lower worlds
      > of KAL is perfect. Thus, if it (Eckankar)
      > works why complain? H.I.s have
      > put blinders on in order to stay
      > the course and maintain their
      > prestigious positions which took
      > them decades of time and money
      > to obtain. Many have rejected, in
      > part, HK's RESA structure and the
      > ESA Guidelines. Yes, I knew of H.I.s
      > that did the same... picked and
      > chose what they wanted to follow
      > and believe. However, that's not
      > the way Eckankar is supposed to
      > work. One is supposed to take
      > the bait and swallow it hook, line,
      > and sinker! Twit, supposedly, took
      > only the best from all of the other
      > religions and experts, etc. in order
      > to create (or bring forth) the EK
      > dogma to the modern Western
      > world. Thus, how can one pick
      > and chose when it's all, supposedly,
      > relevant? If a person is not consciously
      > following the guidance and the will
      > of the LEM/Mahanta (Klemp), then,
      > they are heretics!
      >
      > "I just believe the good people just refused to see anything other than eckankar because they needed to belong to something they view as greater than anything else. They are under the eckankar spell. I still wouldn't want contact with them though. I just couldn't listen that eckankar dribble ever again and I would have to show how sorry I feel for them. It would serve no healthy purpose for me or them. So, I just remember the good and bless them in my heart."
      >
      > ME: True! It's nice to belong.
      > Humans are social animals
      > and most like to follow in
      > one way or another because
      > it's easier to follow than to
      > lead. Being a follower requires
      > less thought and energy. It's
      > less demanding, less consuming,
      > and is less stressful. It is true
      > that the Higher one is with
      > initiations, years, and titles
      > the more lost that individual
      > is. They've bought into it
      > to the extreme. Look at Marge
      > Klemp! However, the ones
      > to really feel sorry for are those
      > ESC staffers who know it's all
      > a sham and Klemp is a poser,
      > but they have to put on an act
      > in order to keep their jobs,
      > health care, retirement, etc.
      >
      >
      > "Anyway, this article named a few people that I am not familiar with. I will look them up but any info any of you can share would be appreciated. Who is Dave Marman, Bill Schnoebelen and Robert Marsh? Are these really old names in eckankar history? Bill Schnoebelen was an eckist according to this article. The other two appear to be writers."
      >
      > ME: Doug Marman is an old
      > friend of Klemp's who's an
      > apologist for Eckankar. I think
      > he's a 7th. He's got some books
      > out there that have overlooked
      > many facts and are based upon
      > lies and hearsay. What's funny,
      > however, is that Doug's stated
      > that Twitchell lied about traveling
      > to Paris, France to visit his sister
      > when it was, actually, Paris, Kentucky.
      > And, Marman's stated that Rebazar
      > was probably made up by Twitchell.
      > After all, PT needed to have
      > someone other than Kirpal Singh,
      > his real master, initiate him.
      > Thus, PT created RT in order to
      > initiate himself. Plus, Marman
      > has admitted that Twitchell
      > created the Mahanta title in
      > January 1969. Yet, Marman
      > omits all of this information
      > in his books!
      >
      > "Telling my experience wasn't easy for me. Although I tend to be a private person, I felt a need to write it.
      >
      > Thanks for giving me the opportunity Prometheus.
      >
      > May you all be blessed with good things especially fruitful spiritual experiences."
      >
      > ME: Thanks for sharing this.
      > It was interesting for me to
      > comment.
      >
      >
      > prometheus wrote:
      >
      > This is an entertaining approach.
      >
      > http://www.scribd.com/doc/8967961/The-DARK-SIDE-of-ECKANKAR-by-Ruth-and-Noah-Samuelson
      >
      > Prometheus
      >
    • prometheus_973
      BTW- Nacal and Usually Skeptical is (me) Prometheus: A Calm And Peaceful Message For All Please read this message in the calm and peaceful tone in which it is
      Message 2 of 14 , May 5 9:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        BTW- Nacal and Usually Skeptical is (me) Prometheus:



        A Calm And Peaceful Message For All


        Please read this message in the calm and peaceful tone in which it is being
        typed. I have really been for the most part enjoying the dialogue on this message
        board.

        I would like to encourage Doug Marman to continue posting here. I think
        gradually we can all learn something that will help us move toward a greater
        understanding.

        We can do this together regardless of religious belief and possibly emerge in
        a place with no fences. I have many friends from different beliefs and something
        I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is that our differences don't separate
        us as much as they used to. There is a coming together of sorts and a move
        towards higher conciousness.

        I have seen this come about through heartfelt sharing of ideas.

        ***A question for Doug. Is Patti Simpson still an Eckist?

        I send all who read this my love

        Freeman


        Joey Ward
        02/09/2004
        Top

        Thanks Doug



        Thank you very much for the reply to the 5 questions that I asked of you. Also
        thanks for looking through Paul Twitchell's writings and finding the same thing that I
        found out about Paul not using the term MAHANTA until January 1969. It means a lot to me that you answered that question I ask a while back. I join Eckankar because the
        Mahanta was the highest state of consciousness in this world and in the inner
        worlds so said Paul Twitchell the 971st MAHANTA (the title he gave himself). I
        still wonder why Paul would say such a thing. To me this is the biggest lie that
        any person could say. To make up a line of Mahanta Masters, (highest state of
        consciousness and God made flesh) what was Paul thinking of. O' well !!! I
        guess the next time I see Paul in the astral library I will give him a kick in
        the pants.

        Thanks Doug,
        Joey Ward

        PS..... Doug, next time you see Harold, could you tell him that Joey would like
        to see Him start posting on The Truth Seeker Bulletin Board. It sure would be grand of
        Harold to do so. Thanks again for your help.


        Seeker For The Last Time
        02/08/2004
        Top

        Another X`Eckist Story



        I joined Eckankar in the early 80's, attracted partly because of their concept
        of Soul Travel and left in the mid-90's. I had become a 3rd Initiate by that time. Because of
        my outspoken aggressive remarks and asking too many questions about concealed facts about the organization, many wondered why the LEM had allowed me to reach that level.

        Initiations and secret words and the idea that we need a Master, mean nothing to
        me in this life because in my different existences I was connected to many of these
        concepts. There were times I needed these secret words and initiations and a Master and
        for those who need them now, it is OK. It is something many have to experience, if not in
        this lifetime, in a different one.

        In the mid-80's, I posted a few remarks on ARE. This was a good lesson for me,
        because some of the die-hard ECKists attempted to attack me with their "sword from the
        Sugmad" and "weed me out of the garden of ECK." I had no grudge against them because I
        knew they would learn to open their minds. At the time, they believed in what they
        did and that it was the right thing for them to do. I accepted it.

        I hadn't been on ARE for a long time but a few weeks ago I was impelled to go on
        it and out popped the information concerning Ford Johnson's book. In the past,
        ECKist would say it was the ECK or LEM. I ordered the book, which I am enjoying now.
        It brought back some memories of Eckankar.

        I was very surprised to see some of the die-hard and long-standing
        ECKists, including High Initiates, especially Nathan. This was a shock and it takes a lot to shock me. I am very happy for Nathan because we had communicated in the past. Nathan would make a very high class lawyer in this life(have no idea what he does). Boy, did he
        swing that sword for Eckankar. He left nothing standing. But that was then and now is now.
        I am happy, Nathan that you allowed yourself to open and move beyond the garden of
        ECK. There is so much more to learn.

        To some Eckankar is still a beautiful garden and I can respect that. I would like to stress that I have nothing against Eckankar and similar religions. They may be needed
        for souls to grow.

        I enjoyed reading the comments on this board..and I'll be back when I have time.

        I'll sign off with the name I used to use on ARE - Seeker, for the last time.



        Doug Marman
        02/08/2004
        Top

        A Few Responses



        I've received a number of comments to my last post.

        I will respond to some of the questions and comments.

        To Degar:

        I agree with you that no church, book or religion can replace the part of us
        that knows. We also both agree on the importance of fearlessness in seeing
        truth, and the importance of teachings with heart.

        My lights are fine, as are yours.


        To Joey Ward:

        I don't do yes or no questions, but I will try to keep my answers short:

        1. Did Paul Twitchell have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman
        as he told the world through his writings?

        I don't know how anyone could say who was highest or who is even higher than
        another. So, I would never say such a thing, myself. I don't even think having the
        highest state of consciousness should be anyone's goal. A person can gain a high state of
        consciousness and be unable to make a living here in the physical. That's not very useful.

        2. Does Harold Klemp have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman
        as he is telling the world throught his writings?

        Same as above, however, I will add this. I agree with the Sufis who say that there is what they call The Pole of The World. The Sufi teacher Ibn al' Arabi points out that this same principle applies at every level of human affairs. Another Sufi put it this way: "Just as there is someone who acts as the pole for the whole of humanity, so there are poles for every faith, community, occupation - even down to the level of towns."

        We sense when we are near such people since they seem to represent and carry the
        whole of the town or company or faith that they are a part of. Every age has
        those who carry the whole of things for the world at every level. We connect to that
        whole through their vision.

        However, I don't believe in saying who the Pole of the World is, since everyone
        needs to find this out for themselves. In fact, in most times through history the Pole
        of The World was hidden. The Sufis say this as well.

        3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works?

        Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes.

        4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on
        them as if the Eck Master were saying them?

        Yes.

        5. Who do you Trust to tell the truth about Spiritual truths? Pick one only.
        [Names omitted]

        I see all teachings as mines. The good ones are gold mines, but they all need to be sorted through to find the pure gold. I have found no outer teachings that are pure gold.

        The only place to test the gold is within ourselves, when we try to use it in our lives.

        You might point to an outer person. I would rather point to our inner knowingness to recognize truth. We often do pick it up from others, however.


        To Journey:

        You asked: "If you are not trying to undermine Ford and his book "Confessions of
        a God Seeker," why did you give such a negative opinion about the book in The
        Chanhassen Villager last November?"

        If you read my comments to the Chanhassen Villager, just like in my last post, it is focused on the errors in what David Lane has reported and the unfortunate fact that Ford repeated these as if they were facts as David did. I am absolutely amazed at how far the distortion of truths from David Lane has spread. I was disappointed that the newspaper had not done better research, and that Ford had not as well, especially since David Lane himself suggested to Ford that he study my book more thoroughly to see what had been discussed via the Internet.

        I am just as amazed at how quickly and completely people assume that I am some
        kind of pawn in a battle or fighting some kind of war against Ford for pointing out
        the errors. I guess this goes to show how far off perceptions of someone else's motivations
        can be. People will imagine what my motivations are, but they are a million miles from
        the mark.

        I do agree that some people like to win their arguments no matter what, and since I have no interest in that, this is exactly why I have said I would say no more about such things unless folks here were interested. From the responses I've seen, there doesn't seem to be much interest in what I was writing about.

        I think you are right that we should all look at our motivations. I have certainly done so and have tried only to offer help in clearing up some of the confusions that have been going on for a while by getting to the facts. I have tried to stay far from criticizing anyone else's beliefs, although I do think some friendly dialogue in this area is good.

        I think it is just as important to look at the motivations for bringing up my personal motivations. I have not questioned Ford's motivations, nor would I. I think his intentions are sincere. Getting stuck over another person's so-called intentions is often the way our Censor stops us from seeing another person's point of view fairly.

        When we get so attached to our cause, anyone who says anything that appears to
        interfere with our cause becomes or enemy. The motivations of our enemies are always wrong in our minds. Ask them and they would say the same about their enemies.

        It is a sad fact that public dialogue over religious matters is almost impossible these days.
        This was not true in America during its early days. Public dialogue was often lively and contentious, but never came to people disowning their neighbors or rejecting their families and friends like it does today.

        As far as I am concerned, we are all friends here with a common interest in Spiritual Truth.
        That is how I see it. And we will each decide for ourselves what is true, as we should.


        To DD:

        You wrote: "You spend all of your time chipping away at the edges of the argument,
        finding miniscule points of contention (a minor date discrepancy here, a location there)
        but not once do you address the underlying core truth that is being and has been
        expressed here from the very beginning."

        Exactly right. So why is everyone getting so worked up about it? Why is no one
        simply acknowledging the minor points and letting it go? These are not core truths,
        just a matter of correcting errors in fact.

        No, I don't agree that my "can't we all get along" message doesn't help us get at the truth. In fact, let me say it this way: If we can not listen to those who see things differently than we do, then we will never see Truth. This doesn't mean we should all agree, but it certainly
        does mean that we should be able to hold respectful and friendly conversations
        with those who have a different way of seeing things. We should be open to learning from
        others.

        You wrote: "Your method is to find a few unimportant discrepancies and use them
        as an attempt to discredit the entire revelation of overall truth discovered."

        This is incorrect. I am only trying to point out the errors. I am not trying to discredit the entire message. But clearly, after we have seen the facts for what they are, the overall picture does change somewhat. That's natural.

        Since so many of David Lane's claims are in fact not based on facts at all, but merely
        on imagined intentions and speculations, I have also offered other possible interpretations.
        My point is not that David's guesses are wrong and mine are right, but simply to
        show how widely interpretations can vary when there are no facts.

        You are the one who is painting a picture of black and white, not I. I don't see David
        or Ford as all wrong, nor as all right. I say let's find the gold wherever we look.
        Why blame anyone for the fact that everything they offer is not pure gold?

        Lastly, you suggest that I am defending a teaching and that I am an apologist.
        Okay, perhaps I am. I don't feel that is what I am doing, but I can see it would
        look that way to you. But surely you see that your comments are the same. You are
        also defending your beliefs. In fact, everyone who has responded to my post on this
        bulletin board has picked at what I would call minor, technical details and
        completely avoided my points. This doesn't mean you or anyone else here is any less
        sincere, does it?


        To Nacal:

        You asked: "Where do you ever give a reference or a quote from your sources?"

        They are in my book, and have been thoroughly discussed on alt.religion.eckankar
        and can be found in the records there. I would be glad to present them here as
        well, if anyone was interested.

        You asked: "Why have you returned without answering the questions posed to you
        by site members in previous postings? When did Twitchell first write about the
        mahanta?

        Was it 1969 as one site member has stated?"

        I answered last time that I had just moved to a new home and my files were still
        packed in boxes. They are still packed in boxes, but a few are handy so I pulled out
        Paul's old Wisdom Notes and Illuminated Way Letters.

        You seem to be right. Paul didn't use the word, Mahanta, until the January 1969
        Illuminated Way Letter and the February 1969 Wisdom Note. Before then he mainly used, The
        Master, Spiritual Traveler, Teacher, etc. Not even the mention of Living ECK
        Master very often, although Outer Master and living Master were mentioned often.

        This is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

        You wrote: "You are also being untruthful when you say that you, "… have no
        desire to interfere with the beliefs of anyone."

        And how would you know that? You seem to know my own desires and intentions
        better than I do. Clearly I will need to ask you next time what my intentions
        and desires are.

        This is foolishness. Do you realize how hard it is to know the desires of your
        own children?

        How often do parents misunderstand what their children are trying to do? Have
        you never had this happen to you when you were a child? Yet you think you can
        actually guess my desires, when you don't even know me? Have we even met?

        Why do people spend so much time imagining they KNOW the intentions of those
        they disagree with?

        I see this with ECKists just as often as with David Lane and the group here. So,
        I'm not picking on this group. I see it as a real trap and an excuse to justify
        rejecting what another person has to say.

        You wrote: "You also claim to "have enjoyed the conversations on this bulletin
        board" and yet you only respond to selective questions."

        That's right. That was what I came here to share, after Ford claimed that I was
        not after the kind of truth that could be discussed openly and that my book was
        not about encouraging open dialogue. I came here for just that kind of dialogue,
        but guess what? No one here wants to discuss the facts or the errors openly.

        If I were Ford, I would care enough to make sure the facts I was using were
        accurate. I thought, especially as a lawyer, he would want to know.

        You wrote: "You attempt to confuse (like Paul and Harold) by twisting and
        abusing truth in order to blind the reader with your distortions and illusions of reality."

        If you really believe this, then why not point out a quote where you feel this
        is what I am attempting to do, rather than making broad accusations about my
        motivations? Why not just address directly what what I am saying and point out
        how you see it differently? I have no intention of twisting the truth in anyway
        at all.

        You wrote: "Is what Harold's teaches (Eckankar) a myth?

        "Since I brought the subject up can you tell me if the Holocaust was a myth or
        not?

        "Some things ARE black and white so just give a yes or no answer to the
        previously mentioned two questions. Please, no long-winded explanation, yes or
        no to each question."

        Sorry, I don't do yes or no answers, but I'll be glad to discuss your questions.
        Yes, I would say a lot of what is taught about Eckankar is a myth. Yes, I think
        a lot of what people think about the Holocaust is made up of myth as well. This
        doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that many of the stories or
        facts are lies. It just means that people often try to simplify things.

        History is largely made up of myth. There are a million personal individual
        stories about World War II, for example, yet the history books treat it as one
        thing that happened. The people who go through it don't see it the way the
        history books do. They were there, but the myths are what we can deal with to
        understand. Otherwise it is too complex.

        You wrote: "Doug, instead of focusing on David Lane or Ford's book let's now
        focus on the writings of Twitchell and Klemp and see where we can find
        inaccuracies, or is the world still flat to you? Did you like the posting from
        the May-June-July 1971 Mystic World about Twitchell? "No one really knows for
        sure where he came from, when he was born, or if his true name is even Paul
        Twitchell. How long he has been on this Earth planet is not known." Or, how
        about this quote from the same article, "Paul is known to the world as Peddar
        Zaskq, which is his real name, is an occidental." Wasn't this also his name for
        his last incarnation and his spiritual name?"

        Obviously we now know where he came from and was born (Paducah, Kentucky) and
        that his true name was not Paul Twitchell, but was John Paul Twitchell. We also
        now know when he was born (1909). Paul certainly didn't ever talk about these
        things, nor would he answer questions about them directly, and I think he liked
        the idea that his past was mysterious, and he helped to create this mysterious
        past. Yes, Paul is only known to the world as Peddar Zaskq because he told the
        world that was his spiritual name.

        And yes, this is the kind of writing that is mythological. Did you think I would
        say something else?

        You went on: "Let's now go back up to the preceding paragraph since you seem to
        claim to like "facts" (why don't you give your sources?). "But it is a fact that
        his Master Rebazar Tarzs, an ancient Tibetan lama, who appears to be in his
        early forties, was a young man when Columbus discovered America." Now, was that
        really a "fact," or a delusional belief, or a deliberate lie? Or, is it that,
        "There is a need of the people to believe in the magic of a saviour, and Sri
        Paul Twitchell knows this and acts out the part" (same article)."

        It certainly is no fact, since there are no records nor anything else to prove
        that Rebazar Tarzs even exists, never mind how old he really is. However, there
        is no proof that it is a lie, either. It certainly sounds far-fetched. But I
        don't think the belief in saints, saviors and spiritual teachers comes from the
        desire to believe in magic. I think it comes from the innate memory within Soul
        that there is a truth and meaning to life that most of the world seems to have
        forgotten, but some remember.

        As Rumi once said, the reason that false gold is so popular is because there is
        such a thing as real gold.

        Of course, mixed with this is that many people want a father figure, or want
        someone to take care of them and tell them what is right and wrong.

        You wrote: "The sad thing is that there is no freedom in religion… there is only
        control through the use of fear and surrender of the common sense of having an
        open mind, and of course, the dangled carrot of initiation and hope."

        It certainly seems that way. To me, without freedom there is no point to a
        spiritual teaching. It is simply a social group. There is more peer pressure and
        more influence from the people who want everyone to be harmonious rather than
        speaking honestly, than control from above, but in general I agree with you.

        You wrote: "Paul states, "Ramaji was one of the first initiates in the ancient
        Order of the Vairagi." It seems Paul has a problem spelling his name. "Ji" is a
        Hindu suffix used to denote respect and affection. But, Paul is not speaking of
        Rama."

        Why do you think that Paul is referring to someone different than Rama? The
        Hindus often add the "ji" to the end of a name, and sometimes it is written with
        only the "j". Take the name Shamus-i-Tabriz. Generally this is spelled, Shams of
        Tabriz. Same person. Jalalludin Rumi is spelled dozens of ways. Sometimes he is
        also called Mevlana. Same person. Sometimes it is written Shabda Yoga, sometimes
        Shabd Yog. Sometimes Yoga is spelled Joga. I interpret this quote from Paul to
        be referring to the same person as Rama, but if you feel otherwise I would find
        it interesting to hear why.

        You asked: "By the way, why has Harold evaded giving his birth date and age?"

        I don't know. Probably because it is a personal fact that has nothing to do with
        his role. But maybe it is just a hold-over from Paul. You would have to ask him.
        My guess is that he doesn't want people holding birthday parties because of his
        birthdate.

        You wrote: "Also, why is it Doug that on page 282 that Harold, the mahanta,
        doesn't even know today about an experience he had in1970. He states, "Was he
        really an ECK Master? Who can say?" Shouldn't the Master who is greater than the
        God of all religions know such things?"

        I would have to read the whole quote in context. It sounds to me as if Harold is
        asking a rhetorical question. In other words, who can say if he was a Master
        then?

        Actually the question I ask is how did Darwin know that he was the Mahanta, or
        how does Harold know this? Isn't this like any initiate who might think they
        have gained the next initiation? Isn't this the same question? How do they
        really know?

        You ask: "Are the initiations in Eckankar valid as a means to greater spiritual
        growth over those who are non-eckists? Or, is this a myth too?"

        I think the initiations are a mixed bag. There is definitely reality to them,
        from my personal experience. But they have become filled with myths as well. I
        can tell you that real Self-Realization is rare, HI or not. The initiation level
        doesn't prove anything. It is more meaningful as a personal matter than a
        comparison to others. I don't think anyone should be judging another person's
        worth or truth by what initiation level they are at. Including the Master.

        You asked: "Paul states on page 136 of Difficulties Of Becoming The Living ECK
        Master, "Cause with all of that, see, I write books in series. I have four books
        that are finished now; well, the Shariyat is a continued writing, but I've got
        three books actually." So Doug, where's book three? If it wasn't finished why
        didn't Harold go to the Astral Library to finish it?"

        Paul wrote a number of the first chapters to book three. I think he got to chapter three or four. That's as far as it has gotten. I think that Harold thought about completing book three but for some reason decided it wasn't his place to do so. I would be surprised if Harold ever finishes book three, or tries to. But you would have to ask him if you wanted to know.

        You wrote: "Was the "Moon Virus" that Twitchell warned of a myth or a self-promotional lie, or did he make an erroneous assumption or was it just conjecture (page 234 of "Difficulties")? Show me where Kirpal Singh's name is used with Sudar Singh's?"

        I have no idea where Paul got the idea of the Moon Virus from. He certainly used
        it to gain some news. It is similar in some ways to the HIV virus in the way it
        has stumped the scientists, but I have heard no connection to the moon.

        Here is the first quote of Paul's where he mentions Sudar Singh, from the
        January 1964 Orion magazine:

        "I began my study of bilocation under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in
        Allahabad, India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of old Delhi. Both
        were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is called the Yoga of Sound Current. I
        had to learn to leave my body at will and return, without effort..."


        Here is another quote from my book:

        "I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that show the same
        thing: An article that ran in early 1966 called, Can You Be In Two Places At The
        Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh, from Allahabad, India, along with Bernard of
        England, a Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in Maryland, Kirpal Singh of
        Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a Tibetan monk.



        "The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the November 1964
        issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul talks about Rebazar Tarzu
        [sic], who he "made contact with...through bilocation," and Kirpal Singh as his
        teachers. These examples clearly show that both Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs
        were referred to, side by side with Kirpal Singh. It was not until late 1966
        before Paul suddenly stopped referring to Kirpal Singh."



        You wrote: "You mention that you talked to Patti Simpson and basically she says
        it was "funny" how Paul would evade giving out information on himself. You wrote
        that Paul tried to leave information blank "when it came to filling out official
        forms," but found that, "they would gladly accept whatever he wrote whether it
        was right or wrong." In truth, Paul intentionally lied and mislead people.
        Ironically, this is one "fact" that you have supplied to help prove the validity
        of David Lane's claim! This is also proof that you don't even listen to your own
        words! Perhaps, this is because your conscious subjective (self) is to evade,
        and your unconscious objective Self (God-Soul) is to impart truth."


        If you want to imagine that, go ahead. I think there is a big difference between
        someone who is intentionally trying to mislead people about their age, and a
        person who refuses to give out their age. But if you want to say that both are
        technically lies, that's fine with me. It seems to me that you are just trying
        to make it look like something it isn't.

        Remember, the picture that David painted is that Paul lied to Gail about his
        age, as he had lied about his age his whole life. In fact, Gail knew perfectly
        well that Paul wasn't giving out his age, and so did everyone else. Pretty
        different picture if you ask me.

        Here's a similar example. David was accused of copyright infringment many years
        ago (ironic, isn't it?). It was over a book written about J R Hinkins group.
        Under oath he said one thing. In his deposition, also under oath, he said the
        opposite. The judge politely said that his testimony was untrustworthy. David
        claims that he was not trying to lie, he just didn't remember it correctly.
        However, the testimony shows that the first story he told seemed like the one
        that would best help his case. Later it turned out to be exactly the wrong
        thing, so when asked the same question in court, he answered the opposite way.
        He lost his case over this.

        Would you call that lying? David doesn't. I'll take David's word for it that he
        just forgot, even though it looks otherwise. I guess that's just how I am.

        You wrote: "Doug you have imagined facts through your own distorted belief
        system of myth being reality. You seem to be confused as you spread confusion to
        others (somewhat like Typhoid Mary).You have no idea of what fact or truth is
        because you are unable to hear truth."

        Mighty big claims. Why not just show me the quotes where you think I'm off base
        and share how you see it? Why imagine that I am unable to see truth?

        I'm sure I see it differently than you do. But I have few illusions about Paul.
        My point was to show how many illusions that David had, while claiming
        otherwise. Ford's book has got them now, too, since he was taken in by David's
        story. The irony is that those who are most concerned about pointing out the
        lies and illusions of others are often just as unwilling to admit and correct
        their own.

        However, if you feel that I've made any errors, please point them out. David
        caught a few, and I immediately corrected them. I would like to make my book as
        accurate as possible, and I'm in the process of making another edit to include
        the latest information, since we are always learning new things.

        Thanks for asking specific questions. More of this would make a real dialogue worthwhile. And I am glad to share the specific evidence behind my comments if anyone is
        interested.

        Doug.



        Degar
        02/08/2004
        Top

        Be The Now!!



        If you are a follower of the Clear Light and Silent Sound, then you follow the
        natural order of who you really are as Beingness. The secret between the truth
        and the lie, is intention. Intention is the prime mover of awareness. How many
        really see themselves as the observer and the observed, the now, the present.
        Look only to the temple within yourself, no church, building or outer temple
        will ever point the way. In fact remove or demolish all these objects of glory,
        pride and self righteousness for in the heart of the now resides the gift.
        "Remind all those that show you the way to the false temple of mortar and brick
        that you have out grown their cage and See now with the Spiritual eye only
        Truth."

        NO RELIGION can hold GOD to a given doctrine! Even the doctrine of Light and
        Sound…..

        Freedom can not be bound and Freedom will destroy all that try to hold it.

        Man is a funny creature, he seeks the company of the one and only primal cause
        even until death. He is even willing to kill to be near to it. He believes that
        distance exists between himself and his Maker and he must make a journey back to
        the Godhead. Knock, knock, is anyone home? Soul exists because it is GOD. God
        has never posed the question, "I love Soul". Your Higher Self JUST IS, no more
        - no less.

        Wake up!

        Dance, Sing and Be.

        "All thing must pass away" – George Harrison

        Hold on to the social consciousness if you must but as Ford and Gram are saying
        they only opened the door you must walk through and see Freedom for yourself. Not their
        truth, but yours.

        After the Temple of Eck was built, I made a number of visits to it. On one of my
        visits I noticed that the temples main entrance floor was cracked right down the
        middle. Eckankar had it repaired, so no one had any idea what had happened. If
        that had occurred in my life, I would have asked what Spirit was saying to me?
        Well I did….. What it told me was that the office(ORG) and the temple
        side(Spiritual) had a major division between them. Another way of seeing it was
        that the true teachings of Eck were no longer within the organization.

        Fear is the last thing to go…… Pure awareness of consciousness can only be
        experienced without fear.

        The events unfolding before us have the blessing of the Holy Order of the World
        Adepts or it would not be.

        This is not an end to something, but more of a beginning.

        Degar *




        Kermit
        02/08/2004
        Top

        Solipsist Reprieve: My Story -- Why I Left Eckankar



        Soul, if It exists, could have entered into the agreement to share the Eckankar
        dream. The purpose may have been for spiritual experience: to advance
        spiritually and learn to be of service in a better and higher way and to
        consciously learn a few other things, like the nature of illusion and deception.
        But if I believe that soul exists, then I am asking for another round of belief
        lessons. I had spiritual experiences, but how do I know that they are real now?
        All I know is that I am here now and even those two adverbs are suspect.

        Now it is the age of Aquarius and the Piscean age is over. Some astrologers say
        that the religions of the intercessor between man and God were an aspect of the
        Piscean phase. It is a strong aspect of the Aquarian age that the veils of the
        intercessors be lifted. And it implies a dark night for the wizard who commands
        his followers to "ignore that man behind the curtain." It is a bright day for
        expose' writers. Since reading the book, I have seen other works that expose
        Christianity and Judaism. All the political books are pointing out lies told by
        the governments and the other party and the history books. For the Christians
        out there: your version of "Confessions" may be the works of Timothy Freke and
        Peter Gandy. Lies and damn lies. All religions are of the cloth of deception,
        regardless of whose face is on the master.

        So it appears that Eckankar has decided to maintain its position as a spiritual
        middle school. We all saw this coming, felt it in many ways and Ford
        articulated it for our minds in a way that we could no longer ignore. We knew
        about David Lane and some of the plagiarism years ago and chose to forgive it.
        We wondered why Rebazar couldn't appear for a TV spot, if he was so physical.
        We were uncomfortable about Darwin being written out of history. The
        restrictive guidelines.

        When I went to receive my fifth initiation, the internal phrase kept repeating:
        "The bloom is off the rose. . . the bloom is off the rose." I wondered what
        that meant, but the meaning is emerging. The days of believing in Santa Clause
        are past. Time to take the next step in becoming emancipated. Joseph Campbell
        said that his studies gave him an overview of the myths and religions that
        precluded his having any spiritual experiences himself. It is like the old
        saying that he who carved the Buddha cannot worship it.

        But I had just finished the book and was casting about and asked spirit if it
        was true. The image of an animated Rebazar peered headfirst into my inner
        vision and then started to mirror every movement I made. I had never had an
        experience with him, but the message was that I was doing it and so I might as
        well quit struggling against the curriculum. "No more Mother Goose stories for
        you and you can pretty much forget about the tooth fairy," it told me.

        Now I suspect why Harold is always telling fairy tales. I see an image now of
        Paul laughing, after telling his audience that only a handful of them would
        understand what he was trying to say. What if he was trying to say that only
        deception exists in the world of illusion? Is Harold hinting that the teachings
        are a fairy tale used to teach a different lesson?

        Masters and lying liars do not come clean. But there may be more to this
        learning than is apparent. What if Harold had told us that he had discovered
        the truth about the whole sham and just said,

        "Well, you can call me Harold or you can call me Gerald, but you doesn't have to
        call me Sri anymore." Would that have been masterful? I do not know, but he
        didn't say that. He built a temple instead.

        One of the wake-up calls for me was an Ask-the-Master session for RESAs in one
        of the recent books. Those guys didn't know anything. They were asking
        questions and Harold was describing worlds and temples and I would like to think
        that RESAs should have been able to access that information themselves, if the
        path was working.

        But no mastership is happening here. With Eckankar producing only two and a
        half masters in almost 38 years, I was starting to worry that I wasn't on the
        short list, anyway. We're all better than we were and we are better public
        speakers, but that is not what we came for.

        We came onto the path because it promised mastership/enlightenment. One of the
        unspoken truths is that we don't have a chance of reaching it by way of
        Eckankar. It has been boiling us like frogs: slowly. By the time we have been
        around long enough to know that no one is going to go beyond the 8th initiation,
        except one guy, our minds are no longer independent enough to get that this path
        to mastership is not working and it not going to work.

        Now we have talked ourselves out of a way of life. Harold would probably say we
        have talked ourselves into a Dark Night of Soul. But that's the kind of beating
        we would be in for if we stayed around.

        I took a class with a lot of law enforcement types at one time. They said that
        everyone, except the most committed sociopath, has a need to tell the truth.
        The body language, tonal patterns and eye movements combine with other
        unconscious clues to betray a lie or a concealed truth. One way to conceal and
        deceive is to tell nothing but lies like Kevin Spacey's character in "The Usual
        Suspects." This may be how Paul Twitchell did it. There is a book about this
        subject called "Telling Lies" by Paul Ekman. It has been staring at me from my
        bookshelf for years and it has gradually dawned on me that the title and author
        may contain a hint.

        My inner voice says that there is only the one I Am that smears itself across
        the living tapestry and reabsorbs itself after one lifetime or many. So this
        baby is going out with the bath water.

        Thanks for tipping the scales.

        Kermit



        Journey
        02/07/2004
        Top

        Reply to GPk: On Unloving Attitudes



        Dear GPk,

        As to your unloving and lack of understanding attitude, I based that on what you
        said, especially in regards to your unkind words to Usually Skeptical.
        You also seem to be putting down people who are posting here on this message
        board. You continue to direct negative comments to others on this site. You come
        across as a very angry person so I am not surprised that my comments bothered
        you so much. You confused me because you sound like you are still an Eckist in
        your attacks.

        You are wrong in assuming I'm stuck/holding on to the teachings of Eckankar. I
        was not a member that long, but I read all of Harold's transcripts and several
        other books, attended Satsang classes, etc. From the get-go, it seemed like a
        lot of double talk and confusing--lots of contradictions. Your postings also
        attack Ford in that you said he was going to become the leader of a new
        religion, that would be no different from any other group. I think you are the
        one hung up on Eckankar. I am glad you are reading Ford's book. Then, I think
        your comments here would be made with a better perspective, regardless of your
        take on Ford's writings.

        It is obvious that the only self awareness that you have ever achieved has been
        of the little self. You seem to be still experiencing the brain washing of
        Eckankar. The comments that you have made indicate that you are only aware of
        the little self, rather than the higher self. Your initiation did not give you
        self-realization. This is the flaw I see in your reasoning. But this is all
        understandable because of the length of time you spent in the Eckankar
        organization--you have more to dump than I do. There is a massive amount of
        flawed concepts along with certain truths that have been mixed to such a degree
        that it is almost impossible to decipher it all. In addition to anger, there is
        fear that there is no truth out there--that you will not be able to find it.
        This is, perhaps, the root of your negativity that you have lashed out on this
        site. This is my understanding.

        Also, I have not touted the degree of my spirituality as you have. I am only a
        Truth Seeker.

        Best regards and good reading,
        Journey



        Willy
        02/07/2004
        Top

        FS Response To Ecki99 Plus 2 Laws



        Thanks for the thorough response to the questions raised by Ecki99 and others.
        As one other book (Christian Bible) often quoted notes "by their fruits ye shall
        know them". Why do so many Eckists see the activities of HCS and former
        members of Eckankar as a threat? There are no lawsuits filed, there are no
        media exposes, there is just the statement of spiritual truths as experienced by
        those who have taken the next step. There is no massive attempt to force Eck
        chelas to leave their path, if that is where they are comfortable. To each his
        own.

        Harold has made much of Richard Maybury's two laws namely:

        1. Do all you say you will do. (Your word is your bond, honor it.)
        2. Do not encroach on others or their property. (Respect the integrity of
        others.)

        I really like these two laws, since they contain so much of spiritual truth in
        so few words. And this world would surely be a much better place if they were
        practiced by more people as individuals, by nations, and by spiritual paths.
        Perhaps the organization of Eckankar and its leaders should consider how well
        they are honoring these two laws, especially in regard to former members and
        also in regard to current members.




        FS
        02/07/2004
        Top

        Response to Eckie_99: The Real Impact of Eckankar Mythology and The Role of HCS




        Dear eckie_99

        I may be starting to look predictable with the way I present my views to this
        website, but, as many of the questions put to this site are in defence of
        eckankar mythology, then one way of replying to these questions is to use the
        very mythology that is being defended in order to express the truer side of
        eckankar, the side the mahanta does not want to be seen. This reply therefore
        will be no exception. I feel sure that this will meet with your approval.,
        seeing as I am using the constructed, contrived, compilations of the master
        compiler, one Paul Twitchell.

        I quote your own words:

        b. A Person who builds a framework that can help people grow spiritually, and
        shows it to the world, to be judged on its own merits.

        There is one point that you have failed to address in your defence of eckankar
        being a framework that can help people grow, and that is, `The growth of people
        spiritually within the framework of eckankar is dependant on Harold's acceptance
        as to what he sees as spiritual growth, or more accurately stated, what he is
        prepared to accept as `Truth.' I will therefore show to the world, and to you,
        another side of how this framework of eckankar really operates in helping the
        individual grow spiritually, and let the world judge it on its own merits.
        Firstly, let the world see some of the teachings of eckankar that will be
        relevant to this reply.

        ME: This is a false premise.
        Klemp plays the role of a
        hypnotist and magician.
        Any "spiritual growth" is
        made by the individual
        and despite Klemp's
        interference via codependency.

        Shariyat book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
        "Without the clear vision of the Vi-Guru- he who is the Master- and the tests
        given by him, one cannot be assured of what he sees or hears. Every Spiritual
        Traveller, or Vi-Guru will give the Word to the chela to call upon the Master.
        If the vision fails to reply then it is false".

        Shariyat, book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
        "Be on guard, lest he who seeks without the Vi-Guru finds those who only appear
        as the Holy One, claiming to be angels, or saints. Let none deceive the chela.
        If he who seeks is a chela of a Vi-Guru, he cannot be deceived by the kal
        Niranjan. If he has not the armour of Spirit, he can be misled".

        Shariyat, book 1, page 149. Third Printing 1972:
        "The ECKist knows that the presence of the Living ECK Master is always with
        him. He is never alone".

        What is presented here to the world, and yourself , is the truth of my own
        experience while within this framework of eckankar and its leader, the mahanta.
        Here is part of my letter to Harold Klemp in regards to my journal of recorded
        inner experiences that was sent to him while following this framework of
        eckankar, that you say, " can help people grow spiritually",

        "All that is contained within the journal has withstood the tests of the secret words that are required to be used to prove their validity and all that you are about to read, I stand by as true."

        Now friend, let the world see what the teachings of eckankar say about the inner
        experiences of a chela and how they are viewed within this framework.

        "The Shariyat book 2, pages 50-51: Second Edition 1988:
        "No ECK Master will acknowledge his appearance to another person. This is
        neither modesty nor is it a feeling of hiding something; in a sense he is
        letting the individual decide for themselves whether it was really him. He
        wants them to decide if it was reality. In this way he is not telling, nor
        confirming his presence with them in the Atma Sarup, but allowing them the
        independence of knowing and understanding whether it was actually him.

        If a person makes up his mind that the living ECK Master really appeared to him,
        then he knows it and this cannot be taken away from him, regardless. However,
        if he has to be told that it was the ECK Master, then he is always in doubt, for
        it was an outside source which gave him his information and not himself. It is
        superficial knowledge and not from his own inner source.

        He must always remember that the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master is not the one
        to tell him of his inner experiences, nor whether the ECK Master has appeared to
        him. But he must know this with a faith that is beyond anything that he has
        experienced and, therefore, it will stay with him. Otherwise it may fade in
        time, and the experiencer soon forgets whether it was really the ECK Master".

        Now let the world see the reply from the leader of this framework of eckankar
        that helps the individual to grow spiritually.

        Reply from Harold Klemp in regards to my journal of inner experiences while a
        chela under his claimed protection as the mahanta.

        "In response to your letter and journal of inner experiences which led you to
        think you have received the Rod of Eck Power. You have not.

        Your instincts were right not to believe this. The Kal misled you."

        Let it be explained to the world, and your own good self, that there was never
        any claim made to me having had received the rod of eck power, only that it was
        a possibility. Therefore, before we go any further, Harold Klemp is wrong in
        his statement. Now we must look at his other words, those of `The Kal Misled
        You`. Now friend, after being told I was misled by the kal, even though I have
        Harold's assurance that, `If he who seeks is a chela of a Vi-Guru, he cannot be
        deceived by the KAL Niranjan.`. he then fails to explain how this could have
        happened and failed to give any further guidance as to what I could do to
        prevent it happening again, although as we can see by the promise of this
        framework, I should never have been misled in the first place.

        Having now told me I was mistaken, Harold then goes on to lay the karmic
        responsibility upon me for being responsible for leading others off the path of
        eck.

        "This happens more often than one would care to believe. People who fall for
        this trick and mislead others off the path of eck become responsible for the karma."

        Let the world and yourself take note of these words, for we are told something
        very interesting here; "This happens more often than one would care to believe."
        Are not these words very thought provoking? Is Harold admitting that being
        misled by the kal while within this framework of eckankar,and, having his
        protection of the Vi-Guru, being misled by the kal is a common occurance? If
        this is so, then the claimed protection of the vi-guru must be failing to work.
        Not only that, the secret words must also be failing. Let the world see what
        eckankar has to say about the protection of its secret words:

        Shariyat book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
        "Without the clear vision of the Vi-Guru- he who is the Master- and the tests
        given by him, one cannot be assured of what he sees or hears. Every Spiritual
        Traveller, or Vi-Guru will give the Word to the chela to call upon the Master.
        If the vision fails to reply then it is false".

        Let it go on record that the visions within the journal's inner experiences did
        reply and that I used the Word, and Words as is asked of the chela. Some of
        these words being Sugmad, Wah Z, HU, Mahanta, or any of the names of the masters
        of the vairagi.

        Here I think we should let the world know just how important this figure of the
        mahanta, the vi-guru really is, otherwise they may not fully realise just how
        powerful the mahanta truly is?

        Shariyat book 2 page 196. Second Edition 1988:
        "The eck works are the most powerful in this world; and the mahanta, the living
        eck master, who is the vehicle and channel for the eck, is the most powerful
        being within the physical world, as well as the planets and all the planes
        within the worlds of God."

        Shariyat, book 1 says on page 81. Third Printing 1972:
        "He is stronger than any man in intellect or spirit, for he has unlimited
        power, and yet this strength is combined with the noble virtues of the humble
        and gentle. All people find in him inspiration for the development of noble
        character".

        Shariyat, book 2 page 184 Second Edition 1988:
        "The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master has other titles. He is the Godman, the
        Vi-Guru, the Light Giver, protector of the poor, the king of heaven, saviour of
        mankind, the scourge of evil, and the defender of the faithful. He is the real
        and only power in all the universes of God. No one can harm him without his
        consent, for all that is done to him is given permission by the ECK, with his
        consent".

        To help further my spiritual growth within this framework of eckankar, the
        mahanta now goes on to say:

        "As a spiritual discipline you are put back to the First Circle of initiation
        and are to stand aside from all eck duties for the present."

        We can show the world that this is also against what the framework of eckankar
        teaches:

        Dialogues With The Master page 172:
        First Printing 1990 "Remember this that those who demand respect and love of
        others to themselves are only exercising the negative or attracting power. The
        true teachings do not discipline in any way; do not set up duties or
        difficulties or tasks for teaching their disciples."

        This framework also tells the world, and its followers, that the teacher will
        bring about any changes needed within a chela without any pain or difficulties.


        Illuminated Way Letters 1966-1971 page 54 Copyright 1975 by Gail Twitchell
        Gross:

        "It is doubtful that the teacher will sit with his chela and discuss any
        character faults of the aspirant. Hardly ever will the teachers tell anyone
        what is wrong with himself, but he will concentrate on the error and bring about
        the change from the inner to the outer world, without pain or difficulty to the
        chelas, very often without the chela having any conscious awareness of it."

        Dear friend, and the world. I am fully aware of what this framework of eckankar
        has done to me, I am also fully aware of what this framework has done to many
        others, and this is the reason why the framework of the H.C.S. was brought
        about. It was brought about to help those who have suffered the injustice of
        eckankar at the hands of its mythological mahanta and to give them support and
        a free voice.

        We can now look to another aspect of this frameworks teachings, if not its
        practice, that of calling upon the master when the chela finds themselves in any
        difficulty:

        I was now left with no other recourse to attain further guidance other than to
        write to the mahanta at the physical level. As yet, nothing has been given. Now
        for the eckankar apologists they can say, "Get It On The Inner", but, and this
        is very very very important, how can the individual `Get It On The Inner` when
        the mahanta has just told the individual that all they have received on the
        inner is the misleadings of the kal? That the chela has the right to call upon
        the mahanta is given in the frameworks teachings. Not only has the chela the
        right to call upon the mahanta, but the mahanta is bound by his duty to answer
        each and every call of this nature. Let the world see the following exhibit:


        Illuminated Way Letters, 1966-1971, PAGE 130 Copyright 1975 by Gail Twitchell
        Gross:

        "Whenever the chela experiences any difficulty with himself such as
        falling into the negative trap, or even with Soul Travel, he should call upon
        the Master to assist him, or conduct him as the soul traveller to the spiritual
        worlds. For the Living ECK Master is bound by his mission to answer each and
        every call of this nature".


        Let it go on record, that the mahanta has failed in his duty, both to give the
        inner protection that his framework promises to give, and that he has also
        failed to assist a chela when called upon to do so. Now the world can see what
        the framework of eckankar says about a master failing in his duty:

        Shariyat, book 2, page 219. Second Edition 1988:
        "If he falters or fails; it is possible that he may be taken out of this
        position; and if he falters in his responsibility while serving as the Mahanta,
        the Living ECK Master, it is possible that he must step down for another to take
        his place".

        Unlike the mahanta, I am prepared to let all see the contents of my journal and
        come to their own understanding, and, unlike the mahanta, I am prepared to
        answer any questions that others may wish to ask. The framework of the H.C.S.
        has provided this facility for openness and free speech, the framework of
        eckankar has provided only threats to those who voice dissension and doubt.

        Shariyat, book 1, page 91. Third Printing 1972:
        "To ridicule, to scorn, to speak mockingly of the word of the Mahanta, and not
        to have faith in him and the cause of ECK is to bring woes on the advocator of
        doubt. It brings his karmic progress to a halt, increases his incarnations in
        this world, and causes him to suffer untold hardships".

        Even if a chela, or chela's tries to broach a question that is not wanted by the framework of eckankar and its leader, its teachings provide a guidance for the party faithful of how to view this dissesion within the ranks.

        Shariyat, book 2, pages 25-26. Second Edition 1988:
        " It must be remembered that all complaints and all arguments against the ECK,
        which are directed at the Mahanta, are the works of the Kal. Such assaults on
        the Mahanta are those which originate from the Kal using the minds and
        consciousness of those persons within its power to destroy the Mahanta and the
        ECK, if at all possible. These are the works of the Kal, who uses religion,
        ministers, and lay persons to bring about the downfall of the ECK, because it is
        the truth. There will be those who call themselves ECK Masters and disguise
        themselves under the robes of the ECK, but they are prophets with false faces
        who are lying to the ECKist`s , but few if any who are true followers of the ECK
        are ever deceived by these agents of the Kal".

        What Harold Klemp and the eckankar organisation have chosen to ignore is that
        truth, a truth that can be proven, is not an assault upon the mahanta, it is an
        assault upon that which is untrue. If Harold Klemp as the mahanta and the
        eckankar organisation see, and feel, that this as an assault upon them, then it
        can only be because they have something to hide. Truth knows no fear, so why
        does the framework of eckankar hide behind a wall of silence, instead of making
        a stand upon its proclaimed truth in order to defend the truth of the sugmad and
        its faithful followers?

        Let those who have the eyes to see and the ears to ear reach their own verdict
        from the `Facts` provided by the framework of eckankar itself , and its
        application of its teachings by the mahanta. `By Their Actions Ye Shall Know
        Them`

        Dear friend, and the world, I rest my case.



        Usually Skeptical
        02/07/2004
        Top

        Response to eckie_99: I Took Your Test and Got An "A" !



        Dear ekie,

        Well, I looked at your test questions and have the answers... !.)

        1.)
        Q- What is more ethically incorrect?
        A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold

        2.)
        Q- Who is less truthful?
        A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold (that was just like #1!)

        3.)
        Q- Who is spiritually more developed?
        A- "C" Those who are not afraid to see and hear truth

        4.)
        Q- What is a bigger spiritual crime?
        A- "C" Not to give people the opportunity to know and choose truth over lies

        That wasn't so hard after all... was it!

        I graded it myself and got 100% correct!

        Usually Skeptical

        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that
        rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"
        >
        > Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original links/threads for
        complete context.)
        >
        > To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is still a
        long post though.
        >
        > (1)
        >
        > Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online book:
        >
        > [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my
        self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day I [Doug
        Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in the box. It was a
        personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his home. It sounded like Paul
        was experimenting again. This time he was trying to create an audio version of
        something like Dialogues With The Master.
        >
        > The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs.
        Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely sound, saying something
        like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicking the voice of Rebazar
        Tarzs! The tape went on to give a discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic.
        This was so long ago I can't remember much more than that, but the tape was
        amazing to me, and I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it
        today.
        >
        > So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had ever heard
        anything about it before. He immediately became interested, told me that it was
        news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I told Darwin that I had left
        it in my apartment with all the other tapes I was sorting through, but I would
        run home to get it for him. I immediately jumped up to head for my car.
        >
        > It was at this point that Darwin said something that left me with a deep
        impression. He saw that I was hurrying toward my car in my desire to get the
        tape for him, and he said, "Take your time." He then paused, as if he was saying
        something very important, and he added, "There is never any reason to rush."
        [... .]
        >
        > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Nine.htm
        >
        > (2)
        >
        > July 2001:
        >
        > "The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT my
        invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it. - [David Lane?]
        >
        > Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't
        David show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought that?
        Kirpal makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's Fang, which in
        its first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but was changed to Rebazar
        Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967. [....]" - [Doug Marman?]
        >
        > http://tinyurl.com/4x3kl25
        >
        > (3)
        >
        > July 2003:
        >
        > Interesting, Doug. I have mixed feeling about the "plagerism". For thos most
        part, I see the copied info as generally either common themes or insignificant
        fillers. However, I find the quotes where he claimed to have come from Rebazar
        to have been done in really poor taste... and perhaps not a great move in his
        part ???
        >
        What are your on that stuff ?

        > I agree with you that plagiarism is not the real issue. I think the fact
        that many felt The Far Country was a transcription of an actual dialog means
        this matter of plagiarism shows them a very different picture. It means the
        words really came from Paul's pen, with help from other authors, and not word
        for word from Rebazar Tarzs.

        > As for poor taste, I think it looks a lot differently now. I can look back
        at some of my early writings and see strong similarities with Paul's books. He
        influenced me significantly. Let's say I decided to leave ECKANKAR and start
        writing for some other teacher. Let's say I took some of my old writings and
        just re-worked them to fit with the new teachings. Now, somebody eventually sees
        that my writings are almost word for word from some of Paul's writings. Now it
        looks like I was "stealing" from ECKANKAR, and that the new teacher is just a
        spin-off.

        > It's all a matter of perspective.

        > I think Paul was clearly influenced by Johnson's books. He obviously liked
        them enough that he covered a lot of the same material, and even used very
        similar words in many cases, when he wrote The Far Country. However, he was also
        writing this at the same time as he handed Kirpal Singh his first draft of The
        Tiger's Fang. If Kirpal had not rejected his efforts, I believe Kirpal's
        students would have looked at The Far Country far differently.

        > On the other hand, I don't really know what Paul was thinking when he wrote
        this book. I do like The Far Country far more than Johnson's books, so I'm
        glad he wrote it. However, I do think that it is a serious negative to his
        popularity in the public sector. I'm not sure Paul would mind too much about
        that. - Doug.
        >
        > http://tinyurl.com/7stz3vz
        >
        > (4) February 2004:
        >
        > "[...] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I guess I
        can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers
        words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck Master were saying
        them? Yes. [....]"
        >
        > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=268&page=168#m264
        >
        > (5)
        >
        > March 2007:
        >
        > [...] Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book,
        Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual account?

        > Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is he
        trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?

        > I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By The
        River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, but have
        taken The Far Country as something different.

        > So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar work of
        art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow you were
        fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it becomes a trust
        issue for them.

        > I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was much
        more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing spiritual
        teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.

        > These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So, I
        always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he was
        trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.

        In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book, to leave
        the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it was really
        like. [...] Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write
        about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the later,
        wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why worry if his facts
        are not exactly right?
        >
        > http://tinyurl.com/7tuzbwd
        >
        > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer
        <jepfeiffer@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Prometheus,
        > >
        > > You have no idea how comforting your comments are to me. It gives me peace
        of mind to know that others did have them too. Thank you for being such a wise
        soul.
        > >
        > > Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that
        rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why? The circus of
        eckankar is mind boggling. The more I hear from experienced eckist, the harder
        it is to believe that it can stand as an organization. It appears like a house
        of cards. Do you think more people are becoming disenchanted with eckankar and
        do you think the org is losing ground? I have read they exaggerate their
        membership by counting anyone who has ever attended an eck event. Any ideas?
        > >
        > > Thanks
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@>
        > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar
        (Revisited)
        > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:33 PM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hello Janice and All,
        > > Interesting. I think I'll
        > > share some comments
        > > to your insights below.
        > >
        > > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
        > > "Prometheus,
        > >
        > > Now that is very interesting.
        > >
        > > I, myself, felt I suffered some kind of an attack about a year or so before
        I got out. I believe it happened because I just wasn't falling in line like a
        good little eckist but maybe I was robbed of energy. My experience was that I
        was just before falling asleep one night and I heard a loud voice which used a
        word I couldn't remember later. I know it started with a P.
        > >
        > > Anyway, as this word was being shouted, I got a jolt of some kind and then I
        felt a wave of nausea and weakness. This wasn't a dream but I was only half
        awake. The voice I heard wasn't wimpy sounding klemp. It was a strong male
        voice. A few nights later, I did dream that an ugly looking little troll like
        figure came into my room and stood gazing at me through the metal barks on the
        foot board of my bed. In my dream I told it to get out now and never come back.
        It did.
        > >
        > > Then I started having dreams that portrayed the eck master rebazar as being
        a thief and a con artist. The experience was weird and the dreams were even more
        so. While an early eckist, I guess rebazar was my favorite character. He seemed
        the most spiritual at the time. I found it very confusing to have these dreams.
        > >
        > > I began to realize how stale my life had become. I was in a long term
        relationship with a high initiate. I started asking the questions that got me
        yelled at by the area resa. I had read nothing but eck teachings since becoming
        an eckist. I thought while an ekist there was true beauty in the teachings."
        > >
        > > ME (Prometheus): I know that
        > > many of us have had similar
        > > experiences of being attacked
        > > by negative entities and having
        > > to defend ourselves. In this case
        > > your RESA was, also, one of these
        > > negative beings. Too bad you
        > > couldn't protect yourself from
        > > them, but it's deceptive when
        > > one has placed trust in a RESA
        > > by assuming they are always
        > > positive and always on your side.
        > > They are as closed minded and
        > > defensive as is any religionist
        > > when protecting their dogma
        > > from too much scrutiny.
        > >
        > > "And so I began to see eckankar with all its manipulation and how it
        attempts to break a person down. I walked away and I started reading all the
        things I would not read as a<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
      • etznab@aol.com
        What stood out to me most from the examples you listed was Doug Marman s use of the word facts . In the examples I gave - especially when Doug addressed my
        Message 3 of 14 , May 6 8:21 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          What stood out to me most from the examples you listed was Doug
          Marman's use of the word "facts".

          In the examples I gave - especially when Doug addressed my questions
          about Rebazar Tarzs on a.r.e. - it seemed to me that in some respects
          "facts" were somehow "secondary" to spiritual experience.

          I thoiught about the a.r.e. thread last night trying to fathom what
          Doug was saying about Paul's stories and things said (some of them) not
          based on facts. And frankly, it still didn't jive with me. Off hand I
          can remember at least two places where Paul Twitchell illustrated that
          Rebazar Tarzs "told him" what to write. In one place (I believe)
          Rebazar Tarzs comes to Paul's room, wakes him up, tells him to take up
          the pencil and write. (I'm referring to Dialogues With The Master and
          The Far Country.) So how can Doug suggest those were Paul's words based
          on a spiritual experience?
          Paul wrote (in so many words) that Rebazar Tarzs came and materialized
          in his room, and in one instance (I believe) the mattress sank from the
          weight of R.T. sitting on it.

          It would be nice if everybody didn't go away, all those Eckists on the
          newsgroups, and if the string of dialogues could continue today. I say
          this because there is a lot more information and examples available to
          share where many of "Paul's words" read as plagiarized from various
          books by other authors - none of them by the name of Rebazar Tarzs, or
          other Eck masters.

          ***

          "They" didn't succeed at booting me from a.r.e., and I didn't "move on"
          as once suggested. To the contrary I continued to research the FACTS -
          whether anybody likeed it or not - and have reams of examples (which
          can be illustrated and verified by REAL evidence and FACTS) about many
          of the things people were chewing on and debating over for years before
          I arrived. Some of the examples I (and others) have since found are
          those that not even David Lane was aware of (I'm talking about examples
          of Paul's writings compared with other authors) and I think probably
          that Doug Marman was unaware of.

          So new information has come in since the D.L. / D.M. debates, etc. New
          FACTS are now known. How facts can be important in one instance and
          something else in another ... I am not sure what Doug was talking
          about.

          I recall from the newspapers that sometimes when something happens that
          embarrasses the government and people want to know who is responsible -
          such as torture of prisoners, etc. - those higher up in the ladder
          have responded with things like: The first time I heard about it was
          from the news / newspaper. Iow, people claim ignorance and that they
          didn't know about something until it became public via the news. Well,
          to admit otherwise - and that they did know about it (and for a long
          time) - would be damning to them and public opinion would have them on
          a spike!

          Now I recall that (for some reason) Harold Klemp doesn't use the
          Internet. I'm sure he reads the newspapers and watches the news, but
          how much about the trove of FACTS regarding Paul's writings compared
          with other authors - INCLUDING REBAZAR TARZS - is in the newspapers, or
          on the evening news? (Maybe it should be?) Much of the new information
          and research has been put on the Internet. That's where it is (also in
          some books). And even there, we've probably all seen how apologists can
          argue against certain information being true, try to marginalize people
          and their research, even to the extent of suggesting (in so many words)
          that facts don't matter. Or, it's not about facts.

          Well, I've seen where it looks like people want to have it both ways.
          Facts matter. Facts don't matter. As far as research goes, and besides
          the stories of "spiritual experiences" that people send in, When was
          the last time the Eckankar website posted something about people doing
          real research into the stories told by Paul Twitchell? (Not to mention
          "research" about the stories sent in by Eckists today?) It was 1984
          when Harold came out with all that stuff about Paul Twitchell and when
          Harold did research. I wonder if they continue to research, or if (for
          some reason) it stopped a long time ago?

          Oh yeah, I remember it now.

          "[....] A few years after Harold became the Master [1984?], he began
          researching and going through Paul's old files. That was after Darwin
          turned Paul's library over to Harold. It certainly would be true to say
          that Harold saw a side of Paul he had not seen before, as did I [Doug
          Marman] when Harold gave me permission to look through the records.
          Paul's files gave some interesting insights into Paul's past, which
          Paul never spoke about. So Harold began to make a more thorough study.
             
          "About this same time, Harold began hearing from a number of ECKists
          about passages in other books that sounded similar to Paul's, and
          further stories about how Paul had studied with Kirpal Singh and worked
          for L. Ron Hubbard, which had circulated around since the early days.
          So, with Paul's files handy, Harold started digging. [....] A few
          months later, after researching Paul's files more thoroughly, Harold
          began giving a series of talks and writing a series of articles to
          share the information he found. Although Harold never tried to force
          anyone to change their perceptions of Paul, he was clearly working to
          unfreeze the ideas that had developed over time so that we could all
          see Paul from a fresh viewpoint. [....]"

          [Based on: Doug Marman: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]

          "[...] Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
          Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
          1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on Sudar
          Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named Sundar
          Singh, who is not the same person at all.
          "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
          whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
          all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
          more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
          initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves.
          "Some people wonder if Rebazar Tarzs really exists. They ask if Paul
          just borrowed a name from the Far East and made him up. Yet people
          report having met the ECK Masters even before they ever heard of
          Eckankar. The ECK Masters are real."

          [Based on: Article (Looking at the Past for Spiritual Lessons) by
          Harold Klemp - see link]

          http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training

          They got reports? Hmm ... then maybe I should send in a report? :)

          I could give other examples where it looks like Eckankar is interested
          in stories from other people, including what people found by research.
          Apparently though, the LEM. isn't going to simply look at the Eck-Vidya
          and share answers to all of the questions people have. At the same time
          though, it looks like people pick and choose from all the information
          only what "THEY WANT" the facts to be and put the rest under the rug.

          If one disregards the reported facts written by Paul Twitchell
          concerning his meetings, encounters, and relationships with Eck Masters
          then where does it leave you? In Never Never Land with Peter Pan and
          Tinker Bell, etc.? (Hey look! He's playing a flute!)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverland

          Are "spiritual experiences", the "stories" (and the stories that people
          send in) somehow more REAL than factual accounts which can be
          researched and verified? Or, Are "spiritual experiences" sometimes used
          as a label for anything a person wants to be true? Iow, does the land
          of make believe trump the actual facts? This is what it comes down to,
          IMO.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
          <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sat, May 5, 2012 10:57 pm
          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar
          (Revisited)

           
          BTW- Nacal and Usually Skeptical is (me) Prometheus:

          A Calm And Peaceful Message For All

          Please read this message in the calm and peaceful tone in which it is
          being typed.
          I have really been for the most part enjoying the dialogue on this
          message board.

          I would like to encourage Doug Marman to continue posting here. I think
          gradually
          we can all learn something that will help us move toward a greater
          understanding.

          We can do this together regardless of religious belief and possibly
          emerge in
          a place with no fences. I have many friends from different beliefs and
          something
          I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is that our differences don't
          separate
          us as much as they used to. There is a coming together of sorts and a
          move
          towards higher conciousness.

          I have seen this come about through heartfelt sharing of ideas.

          ***A question for Doug. Is Patti Simpson still an Eckist?

          I send all who read this my love

          Freeman

          Joey Ward
          02/09/2004
          Top

          Thanks Doug

          Thank you very much for the reply to the 5 questions that I asked of
          you. Also thanks for
          looking through Paul Twitchell's writings and finding the same thing
          that I found out about
          Paul not using the term MAHANTA until January 1969. It means a lot to
          me that you answered that question I ask a while back. I join Eckankar
          because the Mahanta was the highest state of consciousness in this
          world and in the inner worlds so said Paul Twitchell the 971st MAHANTA
          (the title he gave himself). I still wonder why Paul would say such a
          thing. To me this is the biggest lie that any person could say. To make
          up a line of Mahanta Masters, (highest state of consciousness and God
          made flesh) what was Paul thinking of. O' well !!! I guess the next
          time I see Paul in the astral library I will give him a kick in the
          pants.

          Thanks Doug,
          Joey Ward

          PS..... Doug, next time you see Harold, could you tell him that Joey
          would like to see Him
          start posting on The Truth Seeker Bulletin Board. It sure would be
          grand of Harold to do so.
          Thanks again for your help.

          Seeker For The Last Time
          02/08/2004
          Top

          Another X`Eckist Story

          I joined Eckankar in the early 80's, attracted partly because of their
          concept of Soul Travel
          and left in the mid-90's. I had become a 3rd Initiate by that time.
          Because of my outspoken
          aggressive remarks and asking too many questions about concealed facts
          about the organization, many wondered why the LEM had allowed me to
          reach that level.

          Initiations and secret words and the idea that we need a Master, mean
          nothing to me
          in this life because in my different existences I was connected to many
          of these concepts.
          There were times I needed these secret words and initiations and a
          Master and for those
          who need them now, it is OK. It is something many have to experience,
          if not in this lifetime,
          in a different one.

          In the mid-80's, I posted a few remarks on ARE. This was a good lesson
          for me, because
          some of the die-hard ECKists attempted to attack me with their "sword
          from the Sugmad"
          and "weed me out of the garden of ECK." I had no grudge against them
          because I knew
          they would learn to open their minds. At the time, they believed in
          what they did and
          that it was the right thing for them to do. I accepted it.

          I hadn't been on ARE for a long time but a few weeks ago I was impelled
          to go on it
          and out popped the information concerning Ford Johnson's book. In the
          past, ECKist
          would say it was the ECK or LEM. I ordered the book, which I am
          enjoying now.
          It brought back some memories of Eckankar.

          I was very surprised to see some of the die-hard and long-standing
          ECKists,including
          High Initiates, especially Nathan. This was a shock and it takes a lot
          to shock me. I am
          very happy for Nathan because we had communicated in the past. Nathan
          would make
          a very high class lawyer in this life(have no idea what he does). Boy,
          did he swing that
          sword for Eckankar. He left nothing standing. But that was then and now
          is now. I am
          happy, Nathan that you allowed yourself to open and move beyond the
          garden of ECK.
          There is so much more to learn.

          To some Eckankar is still a beautiful garden and I can respect that. I
          would like to stress
          that I have nothing against Eckankar and similar religions. They may be
          needed for souls
          to grow.

          I enjoyed reading the comments on this board..and I'll be back when I
          have time.

          I'll sign off with the name I used to use on ARE - Seeker, for the last
          time.

          Doug Marman
          02/08/2004
          Top

          A Few Responses

          I've received a number of comments to my last post.

          I will respond to some of the questions and comments.

          To Degar:

          I agree with you that no church, book or religion can replace the part
          of us
          that knows. We also both agree on the importance of fearlessness in
          seeing
          truth, and the importance of teachings with heart.

          My lights are fine, as are yours.

          To Joey Ward:

          I don't do yes or no questions, but I will try to keep my answers
          short:

          1. Did Paul Twitchell have the highest state of consciousness as the
          Godman
          as he told the world through his writings?

          I don't know how anyone could say who was highest or who is even higher
          than another.
          So, I would never say such a thing, myself. I don't even think having
          the highest state
          of consciousness should be anyone's goal. A person can gain a high
          state of consciousness
          and be unable to make a living here in the physical. That's not very
          useful.

          2. Does Harold Klemp have the highest state of consciousness as the
          Godman
          as he is telling the world throught his writings?

          Same as above, however, I will add this. I agree with the Sufis who say
          that there is
          what they call The Pole of The World. The Sufi teacher Ibn al' Arabi
          points out that this
          same principle applies at every level of human affairs. Another Sufi
          put it this way:
          "Just as there is someone who acts as the pole for the whole of
          humanity, so there
          are poles for every faith, community, occupation - even down to the
          level of towns."

          We sense when we are near such people since they seem to represent and
          carry the
          whole of the town or company or faith that they are a part of. Every
          age has those
          who carry the whole of things for the world at every level. We connect
          to that whole
          through their vision.

          However, I don't believe in saying who the Pole of the World is, since
          everyone needs
          to find this out for themselves. In fact, in most times through history
          the Pole of The
          World was hidden. The Sufis say this as well.

          3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works?

          Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes.

          4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters
          names on them
          as if the Eck Master were saying them?

          Yes.

          5. Who do you Trust to tell the truth about Spiritual truths? Pick
          one only. [Names omitted]

          I see all teachings as mines. The good ones are gold mines, but they
          all need to be sorted
          through to find the pure gold. I have found no outer teachings that are
          pure gold.

          The only place to test the gold is within ourselves, when we try to use
          it in our lives.

          You might point to an outer person. I would rather point to our inner
          knowingness
          to recognize truth. We often do pick it up from others, however.

          To Journey:

          You asked: "If you are not trying to undermine Ford and his book
          "Confessions of a God Seeker," why did you give such a negative opinion
          about the book in The Chanhassen Villager last November?"

          If you read my comments to the Chanhassen Villager, just like in my
          last post, it is focused
          on the errors in what David Lane has reported and the unfortunate fact
          that Ford repeated
          these as if they were facts as David did. I am absolutely amazed at how
          far the distortion
          of truths from David Lane has spread. I was disappointed that the
          newspaper had not done
          better research, and that Ford had not as well, especially since David
          Lane himself suggested
          to Ford that he study my book more thoroughly to see what had been
          discussed via the Internet.

          I am just as amazed at how quickly and completely people assume that I
          am some kind
          of pawn in a battle or fighting some kind of war against Ford for
          pointing out the errors.
          I guess this goes to show how far off perceptions of someone else's
          motivations can be.
          People will imagine what my motivations are, but they are a million
          miles from the mark.

          I do agree that some people like to win their arguments no matter what,
          and since I have
          no interest in that, this is exactly why I have said I would say no
          more about such things
          unless folks here were interested. From the responses I've seen, there
          doesn't seem to be
          much interest in what I was writing about.

          I think you are right that we should all look at our motivations. I
          have certainly done so and
          have tried only to offer help in clearing up some of the confusions
          that have been going on
          for a while by getting to the facts. I have tried to stay far from
          criticizing anyone else's beliefs, although I do think some friendly
          dialogue in this area is good.

          I think it is just as important to look at the motivations for bringing
          up my personal motivations. I have not questioned Ford's motivations,
          nor would I. I think his intentions are sincere. Getting stuck over
          another person's so-called intentions is often the way our Censor stops
          us from seeing another person's point of view fairly.

          When we get so attached to our cause, anyone who says anything that
          appears to interfere
          with our cause becomes or enemy. The motivations of our enemies are
          always wrong
          in our minds. Ask them and they would say the same about their enemies.

          It is a sad fact that public dialogue over religious matters is almost
          impossible these days.
          This was not true in America during its early days. Public dialogue was
          often lively and contentious, but never came to people disowning their
          neighbors or rejecting their families and friends like it does today.

          As far as I am concerned, we are all friends here with a common
          interest in Spiritual Truth.
          That is how I see it. And we will each decide for ourselves what is
          true, as we should.

          To DD:

          You wrote: "You spend all of your time chipping away at the edges of
          the argument,
          finding miniscule points of contention (a minor date discrepancy here,
          a location there)
          but not once do you address the underlying core truth that is being and
          has been expressed
          here from the very beginning."

          Exactly right. So why is everyone getting so worked up about it? Why is
          no one simply
          acknowledging the minor points and letting it go? These are not core
          truths, just a matter
          of correcting errors in fact.

          No, I don't agree that my "can't we all get along" message doesn't help
          us get at the truth.
          In fact, let me say it this way: If we can not listen to those who see
          things differently than
          we do, then we will never see Truth. This doesn't mean we should all
          agree, but it certainly
          does mean that we should be able to hold respectful and friendly
          conversations with those
          who have a different way of seeing things. We should be open to
          learning from others.

          You wrote: "Your method is to find a few unimportant discrepancies and
          use them
          as an attempt to discredit the entire revelation of overall truth
          discovered."

          This is incorrect. I am only trying to point out the errors. I am not
          trying to discredit
          the entire message. But clearly, after we have seen the facts for what
          they are, the
          overall picture does change somewhat. That's natural.

          Since so many of David Lane's claims are in fact not based on facts at
          all, but merely
          on imagined intentions and speculations, I have also offered other
          possible interpretations.
          My point is not that David's guesses are wrong and mine are right, but
          simply to show how
          widely interpretations can vary when there are no facts.

          You are the one who is painting a picture of black and white, not I. I
          don't see David
          or Ford as all wrong, nor as all right. I say let's find the gold
          wherever we look.
          Why blame anyone for the fact that everything they offer is not pure
          gold?

          Lastly, you suggest that I am defending a teaching and that I am an
          apologist.
          Okay, perhaps I am. I don't feel that is what I am doing, but I can see
          it would look
          that way to you. But surely you see that your comments are the same.
          You are also
          defending your beliefs. In fact, everyone who has responded to my post
          on this
          bulletin board has picked at what I would call minor, technical details
          and completely
          avoided my points. This doesn't mean you or anyone else here is any
          less sincere,
          does it?

          To Nacal:

          You asked: "Where do you ever give a reference or a quote from your
          sources?"

          They are in my book, and have been thoroughly discussed on
          alt.religion.eckankar
          and can be found in the records there. I would be glad to present them
          here as well,
          if anyone was interested.

          You asked: "Why have you returned without answering the questions posed
          to you
          by site members in previous postings? When did Twitchell first write
          about the mahanta?
          Was it 1969 as one site member has stated?"

          I answered last time that I had just moved to a new home and my files
          were still packed
          in boxes. They are still packed in boxes, but a few are handy so I
          pulled out Paul's old
          Wisdom Notes and Illuminated Way Letters.

          You seem to be right. Paul didn't use the word, Mahanta, until the
          January 1969 Illuminated
          Way Letter and the February 1969 Wisdom Note. Before then he mainly
          used, The Master, Spiritual Traveler, Teacher, etc. Not even the
          mention of Living ECK Master very often, although Outer Master and
          living Master were mentioned often.

          This is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

          You wrote: "You are also being untruthful when you say that you, "…
          have no
          desire to interfere with the beliefs of anyone."

          And how would you know that? You seem to know my own desires and
          intentions
          better than I do. Clearly I will need to ask you next time what my
          intentions and
          desires are.

          This is foolishness. Do you realize how hard it is to know the desires
          of your own children?
          How often do parents misunderstand what their children are trying to
          do? Have you never had this happen to you when you were a child? Yet
          you think you can actually guess my desires, when you don't even know
          me? Have we even met?

          Why do people spend so much time imagining they KNOW the intentions of
          those they
          disagree with?

          I see this with ECKists just as often as with David Lane and the group
          here. So, I'm not picking on this group. I see it as a real trap and an
          excuse to justify rejecting what another person has to say.

          You wrote: "You also claim to "have enjoyed the conversations on this
          bulletin board" and yet
          you only respond to selective questions."

          That's right. That was what I came here to share, after Ford claimed
          that I was not after the kind of truth that could be discussed openly
          and that my book was not about encouraging open dialogue. I came here
          for just that kind of dialogue, but guess what? No one here wants to
          discuss the facts or the errors openly.

          If I were Ford, I would care enough to make sure the facts I was using
          were accurate.
          I thought, especially as a lawyer, he would want to know.

          You wrote: "You attempt to confuse (like Paul and Harold) by twisting
          and abusing truth
          in order to blind the reader with your distortions and illusions of
          reality."

          If you really believe this, then why not point out a quote where you
          feel this is what I am attempting to do, rather than making broad
          accusations about my motivations? Why not just address directly what
          what I am saying and point out how you see it differently? I have no
          intention of twisting the truth in anyway at all.

          You wrote: "Is what Harold's teaches (Eckankar) a myth?

          "Since I brought the subject up can you tell me if the Holocaust was a
          myth or not?

          "Some things ARE black and white so just give a yes or no answer to the
          previously mentioned two questions. Please, no long-winded explanation,
          yes or no to each question."

          Sorry, I don't do yes or no answers, but I'll be glad to discuss your
          questions. Yes, I would say a lot of what is taught about Eckankar is a
          myth. Yes, I think a lot of what people think about the Holocaust is
          made up of myth as well. This doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't
          happen, or that many of the stories or facts are lies. It just means
          that people often try to simplify things.

          History is largely made up of myth. There are a million personal
          individual stories about World War II, for example, yet the history
          books treat it as one thing that happened. The people who go through it
          don't see it the way the history books do. They were there, but the
          myths are what we can deal with to understand. Otherwise it is too
          complex.

          You wrote: "Doug, instead of focusing on David Lane or Ford's book
          let's now focus on the writings of Twitchell and Klemp and see where we
          can find inaccuracies, or is the world still flat to you? Did you like
          the posting from the May-June-July 1971 Mystic World about Twitchell?
          "No one really knows for sure where he came from, when he was born, or
          if his true name is even Paul Twitchell. How long he has been on this
          Earth planet is not known." Or, how about this quote from the same
          article, "Paul is known to the world as Peddar Zaskq, which is his real
          name, is an occidental." Wasn't this also his name for his last
          incarnation and his spiritual name?"

          Obviously we now know where he came from and was born (Paducah,
          Kentucky) and that his true name was not Paul Twitchell, but was John
          Paul Twitchell. We also now know when he was born (1909). Paul
          certainly didn't ever talk about these things, nor would he answer
          questions about them directly, and I think he liked the idea that his
          past was mysterious, and he helped to create this mysterious past. Yes,
          Paul is only known to the world as Peddar Zaskq because he told the
          world that was his spiritual name.

          And yes, this is the kind of writing that is mythological. Did you
          think I would say something else?

          You went on: "Let's now go back up to the preceding paragraph since you
          seem to claim to like "facts" (why don't you give your sources?). "But
          it is a fact that his Master Rebazar Tarzs, an ancient Tibetan lama,
          who appears to be in his early forties, was a young man when Columbus
          discovered America." Now, was that really a "fact," or a delusional
          belief, or a deliberate lie? Or, is it that, "There is a need of the
          people to believe in the magic of a saviour, and Sri Paul Twitchell
          knows this and acts out the part" (same article)."

          It certainly is no fact, since there are no records nor anything else
          to prove that Rebazar Tarzs even exists, never mind how old he really
          is. However, there is no proof that it is a lie, either. It certainly
          sounds far-fetched. But I don't think the belief in saints, saviors and
          spiritual teachers comes from the desire to believe in magic. I think
          it comes from the innate memory within Soul that there is a truth and
          meaning to life that most of the world seems to have forgotten, but
          some remember.

          As Rumi once said, the reason that false gold is so popular is because
          there is such a thing
          as real gold.

          Of course, mixed with this is that many people want a father figure, or
          want someone to take
          care of them and tell them what is right and wrong.

          You wrote: "The sad thing is that there is no freedom in religion…
          there is only control through the use of fear and surrender of the
          common sense of having an open mind, and of course, the dangled carrot
          of initiation and hope."

          It certainly seems that way. To me, without freedom there is no point
          to a spiritual teaching. It is simply a social group. There is more
          peer pressure and more influence from the people who want everyone to
          be harmonious rather than speaking honestly, than control from above,
          but in general I agree with you.

          You wrote: "Paul states, "Ramaji was one of the first initiates in the
          ancient Order of the Vairagi." It seems Paul has a problem spelling his
          name. "Ji" is a Hindu suffix used to denote respect and affection. But,
          Paul is not speaking of Rama."

          Why do you think that Paul is referring to someone different than Rama?
          The Hindus often add the "ji" to the end of a name, and sometimes it is
          written with only the "j". Take the name Shamus-i-Tabriz. Generally
          this is spelled, Shams of Tabriz. Same person. Jalalludin Rumi is
          spelled dozens of ways. Sometimes he is also called Mevlana. Same
          person. Sometimes it is written Shabda Yoga, sometimes Shabd Yog.
          Sometimes Yoga is spelled Joga. I interpret this quote from Paul to be
          referring to the same person as Rama, but if you feel otherwise I would
          find it interesting to hear why.

          You asked: "By the way, why has Harold evaded giving his birth date and
          age?"

          I don't know. Probably because it is a personal fact that has nothing
          to do with his role. But maybe it is just a hold-over from Paul. You
          would have to ask him. My guess is that he doesn't want people holding
          birthday parties because of his birthdate.

          You wrote: "Also, why is it Doug that on page 282 that Harold, the
          mahanta, doesn't even know today about an experience he had in1970. He
          states, "Was he really an ECK Master? Who can say?" Shouldn't the
          Master who is greater than the God of all religions know such things?"

          I would have to read the whole quote in context. It sounds to me as if
          Harold is asking a rhetorical question. In other words, who can say if
          he was a Master then?

          Actually the question I ask is how did Darwin know that he was the
          Mahanta, or how does Harold know this? Isn't this like any initiate who
          might think they have gained the next initiation? Isn't this the same
          question? How do they really know?

          You ask: "Are the initiations in Eckankar valid as a means to greater
          spiritual growth over those who are non-eckists? Or, is this a myth
          too?"

          I think the initiations are a mixed bag. There is definitely reality to
          them, from my personal experience. But they have become filled with
          myths as well. I can tell you that real Self-Realization is rare, HI or
          not. The initiation level doesn't prove anything. It is more meaningful
          as a personal matter than a comparison to others. I don't think anyone
          should be judging another person's worth or truth by what initiation
          level they are at. Including the Master.

          You asked: "Paul states on page 136 of Difficulties Of Becoming The
          Living ECK Master, "Cause with all of that, see, I write books in
          series. I have four books that are finished now; well, the Shariyat is
          a continued writing, but I've got three books actually." So Doug,
          where's book three? If it wasn't finished why didn't Harold go to the
          Astral Library to finish it?"

          Paul wrote a number of the first chapters to book three. I think he got
          to chapter three or four. That's as far as it has gotten. I think that
          Harold thought about completing book three but for some reason decided
          it wasn't his place to do so. I would be surprised if Harold ever
          finishes book three, or tries to. But you would have to ask him if you
          wanted to know.

          You wrote: "Was the "Moon Virus" that Twitchell warned of a myth or a
          self-promotional lie,
          or did he make an erroneous assumption or was it just conjecture (page
          234 of "Difficulties")? Show me where Kirpal Singh's name is used with
          Sudar Singh's?"

          I have no idea where Paul got the idea of the Moon Virus from. He
          certainly used it to gain some news. It is similar in some ways to the
          HIV virus in the way it has stumped the scientists, but I have heard no
          connection to the moon.

          Here is the first quote of Paul's where he mentions Sudar Singh, from
          the January 1964 Orion
          magazine:

          "I began my study of bilocation under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar
          Singh, in Allahabad, India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of
          old Delhi. Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is called
          the Yoga of Sound Current. I had to learn to leave my body at will and
          return, without effort..."

          Here is another quote from my book:

          "I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that show the
          same thing: An article that ran in early 1966 called, Can You Be In Two
          Places At The Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh, from Allahabad, India,
          along with Bernard of England, a Self-Realization Swami who has a
          retreat in Maryland, Kirpal Singh of Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a
          Tibetan monk.

          "The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the November
          1964 issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul talks about
          Rebazar Tarzu [sic], who he "made contact with...through bilocation,"
          and Kirpal Singh as his teachers. These examples clearly show that both
          Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs were referred to, side by side with
          Kirpal Singh. It was not until late 1966 before Paul suddenly stopped
          referring to Kirpal Singh."

          You wrote: "You mention that you talked to Patti Simpson and basically
          she says it was "funny" how Paul would evade giving out information on
          himself. You wrote that Paul tried to leave information blank "when it
          came to filling out official forms," but found that, "they would gladly
          accept whatever he wrote whether it was right or wrong." In truth,
          Paul intentionally lied and mislead people. Ironically, this is one
          "fact" that you have supplied to help prove the validity of David
          Lane's claim! This is also proof that you don't even listen to your own
          words! Perhaps, this is because your conscious subjective (self) is to
          evade, and your unconscious objective Self (God-Soul) is to impart
          truth."

          If you want to imagine that, go ahead. I think there is a big
          difference between someone who is intentionally trying to mislead
          people about their age, and a person who refuses to give out their age.
          But if you want to say that both are technically lies, that's fine with
          me. It seems to me that you are just trying to make it look like
          something it isn't.

          Remember, the picture that David painted is that Paul lied to Gail
          about his age, as he had lied about his age his whole life. In fact,
          Gail knew perfectly well that Paul wasn't giving out his age, and so
          did everyone else. Pretty different picture if you ask me.

          Here's a similar example. David was accused of copyright infringment
          many years ago (ironic, isn't it?). It was over a book written about J
          R Hinkins group. Under oath he said one thing. In his deposition, also
          under oath, he said the opposite. The judge politely said that his
          testimony was untrustworthy. David claims that he was not trying to
          lie, he just didn't remember it correctly. However, the testimony shows
          that the first story he told seemed like the one that would best help
          his case. Later it turned out to be exactly the wrong thing, so when
          asked the same question in court, he answered the opposite way. He lost
          his case over this.

          Would you call that lying? David doesn't. I'll take David's word for it
          that he just forgot, even though it looks otherwise. I guess that's
          just how I am.

          You wrote: "Doug you have imagined facts through your own distorted
          belief system of myth being reality. You seem to be confused as you
          spread confusion to others (somewhat like Typhoid Mary).You have no
          idea of what fact or truth is because you are unable to hear truth."

          Mighty big claims. Why not just show me the quotes where you think I'm
          off base and share how you see it? Why imagine that I am unable to see
          truth?

          I'm sure I see it differently than you do. But I have few illusions
          about Paul. My point was to show how many illusions that David had,
          while claiming otherwise. Ford's book has got them now, too, since he
          was taken in by David's story. The irony is that those who are most
          concerned about pointing out the lies and illusions of others are often
          just as unwilling to admit and correct their own.

          However, if you feel that I've made any errors, please point them out.
          David caught a few, and I immediately corrected them. I would like to
          make my book as accurate as possible, and I'm in the process of making
          another edit to include the latest information, since we are always
          learning new things.

          Thanks for asking specific questions. More of this would make a real
          dialogue worthwhile.
          And I am glad to share the specific evidence behind my comments if
          anyone is interested.

          Doug.

          Degar
          02/08/2004
          Top

          Be The Now!!

          If you are a follower of the Clear Light and Silent Sound, then you
          follow the natural order of who you really are as Beingness. The secret
          between the truth and the lie, is intention. Intention is the prime
          mover of awareness. How many really see themselves as the observer and
          the observed, the now, the present. Look only to the temple within
          yourself, no church, building or outer temple will ever point the way.
          In fact remove or demolish all these objects of glory, pride and self
          righteousness for in the heart of the now resides the gift. "Remind all
          those that show you the way to the false temple of mortar and brick
          that you have out grown their cage and See now with the Spiritual eye
          only Truth."

          NO RELIGION can hold GOD to a given doctrine! Even the doctrine of
          Light and Sound…..

          Freedom can not be bound and Freedom will destroy all that try to hold
          it.

          Man is a funny creature, he seeks the company of the one and only
          primal cause even until death. He is even willing to kill to be near to
          it. He believes that distance exists between himself and his Maker and
          he must make a journey back to the Godhead. Knock, knock, is anyone
          home? Soul exists because it is GOD. God has never posed the question,
          "I love Soul". Your Higher Self JUST IS, no more
          - no less.

          Wake up!

          Dance, Sing and Be.

          "All thing must pass away" – George Harrison

          Hold on to the social consciousness if you must but as Ford and Gram
          are saying they only
          opened the door you must walk through and see Freedom for yourself. Not
          their truth, but yours.

          After the Temple of Eck was built, I made a number of visits to it. On
          one of my visits I noticed that the temples main entrance floor was
          cracked right down the middle. Eckankar had it repaired, so no one had
          any idea what had happened. If that had occurred in my life, I would
          have asked what Spirit was saying to me? Well I did….. What it told me
          was that the office(ORG) and the temple side(Spiritual) had a major
          division between them. Another way of seeing it was that the true
          teachings of Eck were no longer within the organization.

          Fear is the last thing to go…… Pure awareness of consciousness can only
          be experienced
          without fear.

          The events unfolding before us have the blessing of the Holy Order of
          the World Adepts
          or it would not be.

          This is not an end to something, but more of a beginning.

          Degar *

          Kermit
          02/08/2004
          Top

          Solipsist Reprieve: My Story -- Why I Left Eckankar

          Soul, if It exists, could have entered into the agreement to share the
          Eckankar dream. The purpose may have been for spiritual experience: to
          advance spiritually and learn to be of service in a better and higher
          way and to consciously learn a few other things, like the nature of
          illusion and deception. But if I believe that soul exists, then I am
          asking for another round of belief lessons. I had spiritual
          experiences, but how do I know that they are real now? All I know is
          that I am here now and even those two adverbs are suspect.

          Now it is the age of Aquarius and the Piscean age is over. Some
          astrologers say that the religions of the intercessor between man and
          God were an aspect of the Piscean phase. It is a strong aspect of the
          Aquarian age that the veils of the intercessors be lifted. And it
          implies a dark night for the wizard who commands his followers to
          "ignore that man behind the curtain." It is a bright day for expose'
          writers. Since reading the book, I have seen other works that expose
          Christianity and Judaism. All the political books are pointing out
          lies told by the governments and the other party and the history books.
          For the Christians out there: your version of "Confessions" may be the
          works of Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. Lies and damn lies. All
          religions are of the cloth of deception, regardless of whose face is on
          the master.

          So it appears that Eckankar has decided to maintain its position as a
          spiritual middle school. We all saw this coming, felt it in many ways
          and Ford articulated it for our minds in a way that we could no longer
          ignore. We knew about David Lane and some of the plagiarism years ago
          and chose to forgive it. We wondered why Rebazar couldn't appear for a
          TV spot, if he was so physical. We were uncomfortable about Darwin
          being written out of history. The restrictive guidelines.

          When I went to receive my fifth initiation, the internal phrase kept
          repeating: "The bloom is off the rose. . . the bloom is off the rose."
          I wondered what that meant, but the meaning is emerging. The days of
          believing in Santa Clause are past. Time to take the next step in
          becoming emancipated. Joseph Campbell said that his studies gave him
          an overview of the myths and religions that precluded his having any
          spiritual experiences himself. It is like the old saying that he who
          carved the Buddha cannot worship it.

          But I had just finished the book and was casting about and asked spirit
          if it was true. The image of an animated Rebazar peered headfirst into
          my inner vision and then started to mirror every movement I made. I
          had never had an experience with him, but the message was that I was
          doing it and so I might as well quit struggling against the curriculum.
          "No more Mother Goose stories for you and you can pretty much forget
          about the tooth fairy," it told me.

          Now I suspect why Harold is always telling fairy tales. I see an image
          now of Paul laughing, after telling his audience that only a handful of
          them would understand what he was trying to say. What if he was trying
          to say that only deception exists in the world of illusion? Is Harold
          hinting that the teachings are a fairy tale used to teach a different
          lesson?

          Masters and lying liars do not come clean. But there may be more to
          this learning than is apparent. What if Harold had told us that he had
          discovered the truth about the whole sham and just said,

          "Well, you can call me Harold or you can call me Gerald, but you
          doesn't have to call me Sri anymore." Would that have been masterful?
          I do not know, but he didn't say that. He built a temple instead.

          One of the wake-up calls for me was an Ask-the-Master session for RESAs
          in one of the recent books. Those guys didn't know anything. They
          were asking questions and Harold was describing worlds and temples and
          I would like to think that RESAs should have been able to access that
          information themselves, if the path was working.

          But no mastership is happening here. With Eckankar producing only two
          and a half masters in almost 38 years, I was starting to worry that I
          wasn't on the short list, anyway. We're all better than we were and we
          are better public speakers, but that is not what we came for.

          We came onto the path because it promised mastership/enlightenment.
          One of the unspoken truths is that we don't have a chance of reaching
          it by way of Eckankar. It has been boiling us like frogs: slowly. By
          the time we have been around long enough to know that no one is going
          to go beyond the 8th initiation, except one guy, our minds are no
          longer independent enough to get that this path to mastership is not
          working and it not going to work.

          Now we have talked ourselves out of a way of life. Harold would
          probably say we have talked ourselves into a Dark Night of Soul. But
          that's the kind of beating we would be in for if we stayed around.

          I took a class with a lot of law enforcement types at one time. They
          said that everyone, except the most committed sociopath, has a need to
          tell the truth. The body language, tonal patterns and eye movements
          combine with other unconscious clues to betray a lie or a concealed
          truth. One way to conceal and deceive is to tell nothing but lies like
          Kevin Spacey's character in "The Usual Suspects." This may be how Paul
          Twitchell did it. There is a book about this subject called "Telling
          Lies" by Paul Ekman. It has been staring at me from my bookshelf for
          years and it has gradually dawned on me that the title and author may
          contain a hint.

          My inner voice says that there is only the one I Am that smears itself
          across the living tapestry and reabsorbs itself after one lifetime or
          many. So this baby is going out with the bath water.

          Thanks for tipping the scales.

          Kermit

          Journey
          02/07/2004
          Top

          Reply to GPk: On Unloving Attitudes

          Dear GPk,

          As to your unloving and lack of understanding attitude, I based that on
          what you said, especially in regards to your unkind words to Usually
          Skeptical.
          You also seem to be putting down people who are posting here on this
          message board. You continue to direct negative comments to others on
          this site. You come across as a very angry person so I am not
          surprised that my comments bothered you so much. You confused me
          because you sound like you are still an Eckist in your attacks.

          You are wrong in assuming I'm stuck/holding on to the teachings of
          Eckankar. I was not a member that long, but I read all of Harold's
          transcripts and several other books, attended Satsang classes, etc.
          From the get-go, it seemed like a lot of double talk and
          confusing--lots of contradictions. Your postings also attack Ford in
          that you said he was going to become the leader of a new religion, that
          would be no different from any other group. I think you are the one
          hung up on Eckankar. I am glad you are reading Ford's book. Then, I
          think your comments here would be made with a better perspective,
          regardless of your take on Ford's writings.

          It is obvious that the only self awareness that you have ever achieved
          has been of the little self. You seem to be still experiencing the
          brain washing of Eckankar. The comments that you have made indicate
          that you are only aware of the little self, rather than the higher
          self. Your initiation did not give you self-realization. This is the
          flaw I see in your reasoning. But this is all understandable because of
          the length of time you spent in the Eckankar organization--you have
          more to dump than I do. There is a massive amount of flawed concepts
          along with certain truths that have been mixed to such a degree that it
          is almost impossible to decipher it all. In addition to anger, there is
          fear that there is no truth out there--that you will not be able to
          find it. This is, perhaps, the root of your negativity that you have
          lashed out on this site. This is my understanding.

          Also, I have not touted the degree of my spirituality as you have. I am
          only a Truth Seeker.

          Best regards and good reading,
          Journey

          Willy
          02/07/2004
          Top

          FS Response To Ecki99 Plus 2 Laws

          Thanks for the thorough response to the questions raised by Ecki99 and
          others. As one other book (Christian Bible) often quoted notes "by
          their fruits ye shall know them". Why do so many Eckists see the
          activities of HCS and former members of Eckankar as a threat? There
          are no lawsuits filed, there are no media exposes, there is just the
          statement of spiritual truths as experienced by those who have taken
          the next step. There is no massive attempt to force Eck chelas to
          leave their path, if that is where they are comfortable. To each his
          own.

          Harold has made much of Richard Maybury's two laws namely:

          1. Do all you say you will do. (Your word is your bond, honor it.)
          2. Do not encroach on others or their property. (Respect the integrity
          of others.)

          I really like these two laws, since they contain so much of spiritual
          truth in so few words. And this world would surely be a much better
          place if they were practiced by more people as individuals, by nations,
          and by spiritual paths. Perhaps the organization of Eckankar and its
          leaders should consider how well they are honoring these two laws,
          especially in regard to former members and also in regard to current
          members.

          FS
          02/07/2004
          Top

          Response to Eckie_99: The Real Impact of Eckankar Mythology and The
          Role of HCS

          Dear eckie_99

          I may be starting to look predictable with the way I present my views
          to this website, but, as many of the questions put to this site are in
          defence of eckankar mythology, then one way of replying to these
          questions is to use the very mythology that is being defended in order
          to express the truer side of eckankar, the side the mahanta does not
          want to be seen. This reply therefore will be no exception. I feel sure
          that this will meet with your approval., seeing as I am using the
          constructed, contrived, compilations of the master compiler, one Paul
          Twitchell.

          I quote your own words:

          b. A Person who builds a framework that can help people grow
          spiritually, and shows it to the world, to be judged on its own merits.

          There is one point that you have failed to address in your defence of
          eckankar being a framework that can help people grow, and that is, `The
          growth of people spiritually within the framework of eckankar is
          dependant on Harold's acceptance as to what he sees as spiritual
          growth, or more accurately stated, what he is prepared to accept as
          `Truth`. I will therefore show to the world, and to you, another side
          of how this framework of eckankar really operates in helping the
          individual grow spiritually, and let the world judge it on its own
          merits. Firstly, let the world see some of the teachings of eckankar
          that will be relevant to this reply.

          Shariyat book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
          " Without the clear vision of the Vi-Guru- he who is the Master- and
          the tests given by him, one cannot be assured of what he sees or hears.
          Every Spiritual Traveller, or Vi-Guru will give the Word to the chela
          to call upon the Master. If the vision fails to reply then it is
          false".

          Shariyat, book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
          "Be on guard, lest he who seeks without the Vi-Guru finds those who
          only appear as the Holy One, claiming to be angels, or saints. Let
          none deceive the chela. If he who seeks is a chela of a Vi-Guru, he
          cannot be deceived by the kal Niranjan. If he has not the armour of
          Spirit, he can be misled".

          Shariyat, book 1, page 149. Third Printing 1972:
          "The ECKist knows that the presence of the Living ECK Master is always
          with him. He is never alone".

          What is presented here to the world, and yourself , is the truth of my
          own experience while within this framework of eckankar and its leader,
          the mahanta. Here is part of my letter to Harold Klemp in regards to my
          journal of recorded inner experiences that was sent to him while
          following this framework of eckankar, that you say, " can help people
          grow spiritually",

          "All that is contained within the journal has withstood the tests of
          the secret words that are
          required to be used to prove their validity and all that you are about
          to read, I stand by as true."

          Now friend, let the world see what the teachings of eckankar say about
          the inner experiences
          of a chela and how they are viewed within this framework.

          "The Shariyat book 2, pages 50-51: Second Edition 1988:
          "No ECK Master will acknowledge his appearance to another person.
          This is neither modesty nor is it a feeling of hiding something; in a
          sense he is letting the individual decide for themselves whether it was
          really him. He wants them to decide if it was reality. In this way he
          is not telling, nor confirming his presence with them in the Atma
          Sarup, but allowing them the independence of knowing and understanding
          whether it was actually him.

          If a person makes up his mind that the living ECK Master really
          appeared to him, then he knows it and this cannot be taken away from
          him, regardless. However, if he has to be told that it was the ECK
          Master, then he is always in doubt, for it was an outside source which
          gave him his information and not himself. It is superficial knowledge
          and not from his own inner source.

          He must always remember that the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master is not
          the one to tell him of his inner experiences, nor whether the ECK
          Master has appeared to him. But he must know this with a faith that is
          beyond anything that he has experienced and, therefore, it will stay
          with him. Otherwise it may fade in time, and the experiencer soon
          forgets whether it was really the ECK Master".

          Now let the world see the reply from the leader of this framework of
          eckankar that helps
          the individual to grow spiritually.

          Reply from Harold Klemp in regards to my journal of inner experiences
          while a chela under
          his claimed protection as the mahanta.

          "In response to your letter and journal of inner experiences which led
          you to think you have
          received the Rod of Eck Power. You have not.

          Your instincts were right not to believe this. The Kal misled you."

          Let it be explained to the world, and your own good self, that there
          was never any claim made to me having had received the rod of eck
          power, only that it was a possibility. Therefore, before we go any
          further, Harold Klemp is wrong in his statement. Now we must look at
          his other words, those of `The Kal Misled You`. Now friend, after
          being told I was misled by the kal, even though I have Harold's
          assurance that, `If he who seeks is a chela of a Vi-Guru, he cannot be
          deceived by the KAL Niranjan.`. he then fails to explain how this could
          have happened and failed to give any further guidance as to what I
          could do to prevent it happening again, although as we can see by the
          promise of this framework, I should never have been misled in the first
          place.

          Having now told me I was mistaken, Harold then goes on to lay the
          karmic responsibility upon me for being responsible for leading others
          off the path of eck.

          "This happens more often than one would care to believe. People who
          fall for this trick and
          mislead others off the path of eck become responsible for the karma."

          Let the world and yourself take note of these words, for we are told
          something very interesting here; "This happens more often than one
          would care to believe." Are not these words very thought provoking? Is
          Harold admitting that being misled by the kal while within this
          framework of eckankar,and, having his protection of the Vi-Guru, being
          misled by the kal is a common occurance? If this is so, then the
          claimed protection of the vi-guru must be failing to work. Not only
          that, the secret words must also be failing. Let the world see what
          eckankar has to say about the protection of its secret words:

          Shariyat book 1, page 14. Third Printing 1972:
          "Without the clear vision of the Vi-Guru- he who is the Master- and
          the tests given by him, one cannot be assured of what he sees or hears.
          Every Spiritual Traveller, or Vi-Guru will give the Word to the chela
          to call upon the Master. If the vision fails to reply then it is
          false".

          Let it go on record that the visions within the journal's inner
          experiences did reply and that I used the Word, and Words as is asked
          of the chela. Some of these words being Sugmad, Wah Z, HU, Mahanta, or
          any of the names of the masters of the vairagi.

          Here I think we should let the world know just how important this
          figure of the mahanta, the vi-guru really is, otherwise they may not
          fully realise just how powerful the mahanta truly is?

          Shariyat book 2 page 196. Second Edition 1988:
          "The eck works are the most powerful in this world; and the mahanta,
          the living eck master, who is the vehicle and channel for the eck, is
          the most powerful being within the physical world, as well as the
          planets and all the planes within the worlds of God."

          Shariyat, book 1 says on page 81. Third Printing 1972:
          "He is stronger than any man in intellect or spirit, for he has
          unlimited power, and yet this strength is combined with the noble
          virtues of the humble and gentle. All people find in him inspiration
          for the development of noble character".

          Shariyat, book 2 page 184 Second Edition 1988:
          "The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master has other titles. He is the
          Godman, the Vi-Guru, the Light Giver, protector of the poor, the king
          of heaven, saviour of mankind, the scourge of evil, and the defender of
          the faithful. He is the real and only power in all the universes of
          God. No one can harm him without his consent, for all that is done to
          him is given permission by the ECK, with his consent".

          To help further my spiritual growth within this framework of eckankar,
          the mahanta now goes on to say:

          "As a spiritual discipline you are put back to the First Circle of
          initiation and are to stand aside from all eck duties for the present."

          We can show the world that this is also against what the framework of
          eckankar teaches:

          Dialogues With The Master page 172:
          First Printing 1990 "Remember this that those who demand respect and
          love of others to themselves are only exercising the negative or
          attracting power. The true teachings do not discipline in any way; do
          not set up duties or difficulties or tasks for teaching their
          disciples."

          This framework also tells the world, and its followers, that the
          teacher will bring about any changes needed within a chela without any
          pain or difficulties.

          Illuminated Way Letters 1966-1971 page 54 Copyright 1975 by Gail
          Twitchell Gross:
          "It is doubtful that the teacher will sit with his chela and discuss
          any character faults of the aspirant. Hardly ever will the teachers
          tell anyone what is wrong with himself, but he will concentrate on the
          error and bring about the change from the inner to the outer world,
          without pain or difficulty to the chelas, very often without the chela
          having any conscious awareness of it."

          Dear friend, and the world. I am fully aware of what this framework of
          eckankar has done to me, I am also fully aware of what this framework
          has done to many others, and this is the reason why the framework of
          the H.C.S. was brought about. It was brought about to help those who
          have suffered the injustice of eckankar at the hands of its
          mythological mahanta and to give them support and a free voice.

          We can now look to another aspect of this frameworks teachings, if not
          its practice, that of calling upon the master when the chela finds
          themselves in any difficulty:

          I was now left with no other recourse to attain further guidance other
          than to write to the mahanta at the physical level. As yet, nothing has
          been given. Now for the eckankar apologists they can say, "Get It On
          The Inner", but, and this is very very very important, how can the
          individual `Get It On The Inner` when the mahanta has just told the
          individual that all they have received on the inner is the misleadings
          of the kal? That the chela has the right to call upon the mahanta is
          given in the frameworks teachings. Not only has the chela the right to
          call upon the mahanta, but the mahanta is bound by his duty to answer
          each and every call of this nature. Let the world see the following
          exhibit:

          Illuminated Way Letters, 1966-1971, PAGE 130 Copyright 1975 by Gail
          Twitchell Gross: "Whenever the chela experiences any difficulty with
          himself such as falling into the negative trap, or even with Soul
          Travel, he should call upon the Master to assist him, or conduct him as
          the soul traveller to the spiritual worlds. For the Living ECK Master
          is bound by his mission to answer each and every call of this nature".

          Let it go on record, that the mahanta has failed in his duty, both to
          give the inner protection that his framework promises to give, and that
          he has also failed to assist a chela when called upon to do so. Now
          the world can see what the framework of eckankar says about a master
          failing in his duty:

          Shariyat, book 2, page 219. Second Edition 1988:
          "If he falters or fails; it is possible that he may be taken out of
          this position; and if he falters in his responsibility while serving as
          the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, it is possible that he must step
          down for another to take his place".

          Unlike the mahanta, I am prepared to let all see the contents of my
          journal and come to their own understanding, and, unlike the mahanta,
          I am prepared to answer any questions that others may wish to ask. The
          framework of the H.C.S. has provided this facility for openness and
          free speech, the framework of eckankar has provided only threats to
          those who voice dissension and doubt.

          Shariyat, book 1, page 91. Third Printing 1972:
          "To ridicule, to scorn, to speak mockingly of the word of the Mahanta,
          and not to have faith in him and the cause of ECK is to bring woes on
          the advocator of doubt. It brings his karmic progress to a halt,
          increases his incarnations in this world, and causes him to suffer
          untold hardships".

          Even if a chela, or chela's tries to broach a question that is not
          wanted by the framework of
          eckankar and its leader, its teachings provide a guidance for the party
          faithful of how to view
          this dissesion within the ranks.

          Shariyat, book 2, pages 25-26. Second Edition 1988:
          " It must be remembered that all complaints and all arguments against
          the ECK, which are directed at the Mahanta, are the works of the Kal.
          Such assaults on the Mahanta are those which originate from the Kal
          using the minds and consciousness of those persons within its power to
          destroy the Mahanta and the ECK, if at all possible. These are the
          works of the Kal, who uses religion, ministers, and lay persons to
          bring about the downfall of the ECK, because it is the truth. There
          will be those who call themselves ECK Masters and disguise themselves
          under the robes of the ECK, but they are prophets with false faces who
          are lying to the ECKist`s , but few if any who are true followers of
          the ECK are ever deceived by these agents of the Kal".

          What Harold Klemp and the eckankar organisation have chosen to ignore
          is that truth, a truth that can be proven, is not an assault upon the
          mahanta, it is an assault upon that which is untrue. If Harold Klemp as
          the mahanta and the eckankar organisation see, and feel, that this as
          an assault upon them, then it can only be because they have something
          to hide. Truth knows no fear, so why does the framework of eckankar
          hide behind a wall of silence, instead of making a stand upon its
          proclaimed truth in order to defend the truth of the sugmad and its
          faithful followers?

          Let those who have the eyes to see and the ears to ear reach their own
          verdict from the `Facts` provided by the framework of eckankar itself ,
          and its application of its teachings by the mahanta. `By Their Actions
          Ye Shall Know Them`

          Dear friend, and the world, I rest my case.

          Usually Skeptical
          02/07/2004
          Top

          Response to eckie_99: I Took Your Test and Got An "A" !

          Dear ekie,

          Well, I looked at your test questions and have the answers... !.)

          1.)
          Q- What is more ethically incorrect?
          A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold

          2.)
          Q- Who is less truthful?
          A- "C" Liars such as Paul, Darwin, and Harold (that was just like #1!)

          3.)
          Q- Who is spiritually more developed?
          A- "C" Those who are not afraid to see and hear truth

          4.)
          Q- What is a bigger spiritual crime?
          A- "C" Not to give people the opportunity to know and choose truth over
          lies

          That wasn't so hard after all... was it!

          I graded it myself and got 100% correct!

          Usually Skeptical

          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18"
          <etznab@...> wrote:
          >
          > "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman
          admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"
          >
          > Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original
          links/threads for complete context.)
          >
          > To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is
          still a long post though.
          >
          > (1)
          >
          > Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online
          book:
          >
          > [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my
          self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day
          I [Doug Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in
          the box. It was a personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his
          home. It sounded like Paul was experimenting again. This time he was
          trying to create an audio version of something like Dialogues With The
          Master.
          >
          > The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by
          Rebazar Tarzs. Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely
          sound, saying something like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was
          mimicking the voice of Rebazar Tarzs! The tape went on to give a
          discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic. This was so long ago I
          can't remember much more than that, but the tape was amazing to me, and
          I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it today.
          >
          > So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had
          ever heard anything about it before. He immediately became interested,
          told me that it was news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I
          told Darwin that I had left it in my apartment with all the other tapes
          I was sorting through, but I would run ho<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
        • prometheus_973
          Hello Etznab and All, Yes, as you ve pointed out (below) both Marman and Klemp have similar versions about the facts concerning Twitchell s fictional account
          Message 4 of 14 , May 8 8:36 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Etznab and All,
            Yes, as you've pointed
            out (below) both Marman
            and Klemp have similar
            versions about the "facts"
            concerning Twitchell's
            fictional account of meeting
            Rebazar Tarzs. Too bad
            they overlooked Twitchell's
            version, and the timeline
            conflict, from his June,
            1971 interviews which
            are mentioned in "Difficulties
            Of Becoming The Living
            ECK Master":

            [Based on: Doug Marman: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]

            "[...] Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
            Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
            1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on Sudar
            Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named Sundar
            Singh, who is not the same person at all.

            "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
            whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
            all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
            more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
            initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves.
            "Some people wonder if Rebazar Tarzs really exists. They ask if Paul
            just borrowed a name from the Far East and made him up. Yet people
            report having met the ECK Masters even before they ever heard of
            Eckankar. The ECK Masters are real."

            [Based on: Article (Looking at the Past for Spiritual Lessons) by
            Harold Klemp - see link]

            http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training

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

            Fact: Twitchell was born on Oct. 22, 1908
            (According to Harold Klemp).

            Fact: Twitchell states on page 45 of "Difficulties:"
            "Sudar Singh... He died, I believe, if I'm correct,
            1937; could have been a year or two off someway
            there, but it was approximately in that year he
            passed away. We [Paul and his sister Kay-Dee]
            stayed there almost a year and were shipped
            home because our parents were screaming bloody-
            murder, and then finally they cut our money off
            and we were forced to return."

            ME: PT is, basically, saying that at 15 years of
            age this was his 1st trip to India. More "facts"
            to prove this are listed later.

            Fact: Harold Klemp attended and graduated
            from a private Lutheran all boys school and
            seminary.

            Fact: Twitchell states on page 47 of "Difficulties"
            "... the same thing occurs in the seminaries of
            the Christian church. These Christian seminaries,
            when you're training boys to grow up, they are
            looking for all the things which will explain to
            them manhood or the problems of life. It can
            create sexual aberrations... you can walk around
            the corner of one of the ashrams or the monasteries
            and find the boys there abusing themselves." (pg 47)

            ME: It's possible, according to Twitchell, that
            this "abuse" contributed to Klemp's mental
            break-down circa 1969-70.

            Fact: Twitchell states on page 48 of "Difficulties:"
            "After I had left India, came home, I was then about
            sixteen, I had a year or so to do some work in order
            to finish my degree."

            ME: PT Born 1908, plus, age 15 equals 1923.

            Fact: Twitchell states on page 70 of "Difficulties:"
            "Well, anyway, in about 1947, it was right shortly
            after the Indians nation, India received their freedom
            from England and then became a nation, and they
            had the great riots and that was over with. I went
            over to Darjeeling in the east section of India.
            Darjeeling is up in the northeast of India, right on
            the Sikkim border.... I went up there at the time
            after being over in Allahabad, and there wasn't
            much left there after Sudar Singh had passed away."

            FYI: [Actually PT changed Kirpal Singh's name to
            Sudar Singh, and Kirpal died two years after Paul
            in 1973]

            PT: "But then I went there and I'd been told
            that I would find the ECK Master Rebazar Tarzs.
            I've got something about that in one of my books,
            I think it's Introduction to ECK in which I have it...
            I stayed there for quite some time with him, six
            to seven months... Now, he initiated me there.
            I had already been initiated by Sudar Singh, the
            same as everybody else, the second initiation.
            And then I got the third and the fourth. I went
            up through about the seventh at this particular
            time.

            Then he moved across over into Kashmir,
            up in the Hindu Kush Mountains, and later
            [1951] but not on this trip, I followed him
            up there and got the finish of my initiations."
            [page 71]


            Timeline of Facts:

            1923 - PT claims that he and his sister met
            Sudar in Paris and traveled with him to India.
            This was PT's 1st trip to India at age 15 and
            received his 1st and 2nd initiations from Sudar
            Singh.

            1935 - Harold Klemp (on Eckankar.org) states
            that Twitchell, at age 27, was "exaggerating"
            and "twisting facts" to get into "Who's Who in
            Kentucky," and that Twitchell had never traveled
            all that far from home.

            1947 - PT claims he had his 2nd trip to India
            (at age 35) and received his 3rd-7th initiations
            from Rebazar while staying with him for six
            to seven months.

            1951 - PT claims he went back to India (his
            3rd trip at age 39) and received the "finish"
            of his initiations from Rebazar Tarzs.

            Did Twitchell "finish" with a 9th or a 12th
            initiation in 1951?

            Fact: In any case, the 14th Mahanta was never
            mentioned by Twitchell until January 1969.

            Fact: Harold Klemp states on eckankar.org
            that at age 27 (1935) that Twitchell was
            "exaggerating" and "twisting facts" to get
            into Who's Who in Kentucky and that PT
            had never traveled all that far from home
            as he was claiming.

            Factual Conclusion:

            Twitchell lied about going to India to
            meet Sudar Singh at age 15, plus, he
            lied about this in 1971 as the "Mahanta"
            just months before his untimely death.

            And, PT continued the lie with the story
            of meeting Rebazar in 1947. He connected
            that lie to the one about getting his 1st
            and 2nd initiations from Sudar, in India,
            at the age of 15.

            Thus, the story about meeting Rebazar,
            again, on a third visit, circa 1951, to
            "finish" his initiations is also a fabrication
            of truth! Paul couldn't help himself. PT
            was a habitual liar and a narcissist, and
            for Klemp to point that out just shows
            that HK was not only ignorant of the
            timeline, but isn't all that capable/aware
            of connecting the dots.

            Plus, after Twitchell, supposedly,
            received the "finish" of his initiations,
            in 1951, it took until 1969 [18 years!]
            for Twitchell to mention the "Mahanta"
            for the first time in an ECK publication.
            This is more proof that Twitchell created
            the Mahanta just as he created Rebazar
            and the other ECK Masters... it's all
            a big fat lie! Even the Sant Mat crap
            that Twitchell copied and tweaked
            is a false teaching.

            These facts are the main reason this
            book, "Difficulties Of Becoming The
            Living ECK Master" will never ever be
            reprinted.... without heavy handed
            reediting.

            Prometheus


            etznab@... wrote:
            >
            > What stood out to me most from the examples you listed was Doug
            > Marman's use of the word "facts".
            >
            > In the examples I gave - especially when Doug addressed my questions
            > about Rebazar Tarzs on a.r.e. - it seemed to me that in some respects
            > "facts" were somehow "secondary" to spiritual experience.
            >
            > I thoiught about the a.r.e. thread last night trying to fathom what
            > Doug was saying about Paul's stories and things said (some of them) not
            > based on facts. And frankly, it still didn't jive with me. Off hand I
            > can remember at least two places where Paul Twitchell illustrated that
            > Rebazar Tarzs "told him" what to write. In one place (I believe)
            > Rebazar Tarzs comes to Paul's room, wakes him up, tells him to take up
            > the pencil and write. (I'm referring to Dialogues With The Master and
            > The Far Country.) So how can Doug suggest those were Paul's words based
            > on a spiritual experience?
            > Paul wrote (in so many words) that Rebazar Tarzs came and materialized
            > in his room, and in one instance (I believe) the mattress sank from the
            > weight of R.T. sitting on it.
            >
            > It would be nice if everybody didn't go away, all those Eckists on the
            > newsgroups, and if the string of dialogues could continue today. I say
            > this because there is a lot more information and examples available to
            > share where many of "Paul's words" read as plagiarized from various
            > books by other authors - none of them by the name of Rebazar Tarzs, or
            > other Eck masters.
            >
            > ***
            >
            > "They" didn't succeed at booting me from a.r.e., and I didn't "move on"
            > as once suggested. To the contrary I continued to research the FACTS -
            > whether anybody likeed it or not - and have reams of examples (which
            > can be illustrated and verified by REAL evidence and FACTS) about many
            > of the things people were chewing on and debating over for years before
            > I arrived. Some of the examples I (and others) have since found are
            > those that not even David Lane was aware of (I'm talking about examples
            > of Paul's writings compared with other authors) and I think probably
            > that Doug Marman was unaware of.
            >
            > So new information has come in since the D.L. / D.M. debates, etc. New
            > FACTS are now known. How facts can be important in one instance and
            > something else in another ... I am not sure what Doug was talking
            > about.
            >
            > I recall from the newspapers that sometimes when something happens that
            > embarrasses the government and people want to know who is responsible -
            > such as torture of prisoners, etc. - those higher up in the ladder
            > have responded with things like: The first time I heard about it was
            > from the news / newspaper. Iow, people claim ignorance and that they
            > didn't know about something until it became public via the news. Well,
            > to admit otherwise - and that they did know about it (and for a long
            > time) - would be damning to them and public opinion would have them on
            > a spike!
            >
            > Now I recall that (for some reason) Harold Klemp doesn't use the
            > Internet. I'm sure he reads the newspapers and watches the news, but
            > how much about the trove of FACTS regarding Paul's writings compared
            > with other authors - INCLUDING REBAZAR TARZS - is in the newspapers, or
            > on the evening news? (Maybe it should be?) Much of the new information
            > and research has been put on the Internet. That's where it is (also in
            > some books). And even there, we've probably all seen how apologists can
            > argue against certain information being true, try to marginalize people
            > and their research, even to the extent of suggesting (in so many words)
            > that facts don't matter. Or, it's not about facts.
            >
            > Well, I've seen where it looks like people want to have it both ways.
            > Facts matter. Facts don't matter. As far as research goes, and besides
            > the stories of "spiritual experiences" that people send in, When was
            > the last time the Eckankar website posted something about people doing
            > real research into the stories told by Paul Twitchell? (Not to mention
            > "research" about the stories sent in by Eckists today?) It was 1984
            > when Harold came out with all that stuff about Paul Twitchell and when
            > Harold did research. I wonder if they continue to research, or if (for
            > some reason) it stopped a long time ago?
            >
            > Oh yeah, I remember it now.
            >
            > "[....] A few years after Harold became the Master [1984?], he began
            > researching and going through Paul's old files. That was after Darwin
            > turned Paul's library over to Harold. It certainly would be true to say
            > that Harold saw a side of Paul he had not seen before, as did I [Doug
            > Marman] when Harold gave me permission to look through the records.
            > Paul's files gave some interesting insights into Paul's past, which
            > Paul never spoke about. So Harold began to make a more thorough study.
            > Â Â
            > "About this same time, Harold began hearing from a number of ECKists
            > about passages in other books that sounded similar to Paul's, and
            > further stories about how Paul had studied with Kirpal Singh and worked
            > for L. Ron Hubbard, which had circulated around since the early days.
            > So, with Paul's files handy, Harold started digging. [....] A few
            > months later, after researching Paul's files more thoroughly, Harold
            > began giving a series of talks and writing a series of articles to
            > share the information he found. Although Harold never tried to force
            > anyone to change their perceptions of Paul, he was clearly working to
            > unfreeze the ideas that had developed over time so that we could all
            > see Paul from a fresh viewpoint. [....]"
            >
            > [Based on: Doug Marman: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 10]
            >
            > "[...] Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
            > Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
            > 1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on Sudar
            > Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named Sundar
            > Singh, who is not the same person at all.
            > "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
            > whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
            > all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
            > more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
            > initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves.
            > "Some people wonder if Rebazar Tarzs really exists. They ask if Paul
            > just borrowed a name from the Far East and made him up. Yet people
            > report having met the ECK Masters even before they ever heard of
            > Eckankar. The ECK Masters are real."
            >
            > [Based on: Article (Looking at the Past for Spiritual Lessons) by
            > Harold Klemp - see link]
            >
            > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
            >
            > They got reports? Hmm ... then maybe I should send in a report? :)
            >
            > I could give other examples where it looks like Eckankar is interested
            > in stories from other people, including what people found by research.
            > Apparently though, the LEM. isn't going to simply look at the Eck-Vidya
            > and share answers to all of the questions people have. At the same time
            > though, it looks like people pick and choose from all the information
            > only what "THEY WANT" the facts to be and put the rest under the rug.
            >
            > If one disregards the reported facts written by Paul Twitchell
            > concerning his meetings, encounters, and relationships with Eck Masters
            > then where does it leave you? In Never Never Land with Peter Pan and
            > Tinker Bell, etc.? (Hey look! He's playing a flute!)
            >
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverland
            >
            > Are "spiritual experiences", the "stories" (and the stories that people
            > send in) somehow more REAL than factual accounts which can be
            > researched and verified? Or, Are "spiritual experiences" sometimes used
            > as a label for anything a person wants to be true? Iow, does the land
            > of make believe trump the actual facts? This is what it comes down to,
            > IMO.
          • Janice Pfeiffer
            Thank you etznab for clarifying.  ... From: etznab18 Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited) To:
            Message 5 of 14 , May 9 12:09 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you etznab for clarifying. 

              --- On Sun, 5/6/12, etznab18 <etznab@...> wrote:

              From: etznab18 <etznab@...>
              Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)
              To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, May 6, 2012, 2:50 AM

               
              "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"

              Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original links/threads for complete context.)

              To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is still a long post though.

              (1)

              Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online book:

              [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day I [Doug Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in the box. It was a personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his home. It sounded like Paul was experimenting again. This time he was trying to create an audio version of something like Dialogues With The Master.

              The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs. Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely sound, saying something like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicking the voice of Rebazar Tarzs! The tape went on to give a discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic. This was so long ago I can't remember much more than that, but the tape was amazing to me, and I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it today.

              So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had ever heard anything about it before. He immediately became interested, told me that it was news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I told Darwin that I had left it in my apartment with all the other tapes I was sorting through, but I would run home to get it for him. I immediately jumped up to head for my car.

              It was at this point that Darwin said something that left me with a deep impression. He saw that I was hurrying toward my car in my desire to get the tape for him, and he said, "Take your time." He then paused, as if he was saying something very important, and he added, "There is never any reason to rush." [... .]

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

              (2)

              July 2001:

              "The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT my invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it. - [David Lane?]

              Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't David show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought that? Kirpal makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's Fang, which in its first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but was changed to Rebazar Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967. [....]" - [Doug Marman?]

              http://tinyurl.com/4x3kl25

              (3)

              July 2003:

              Interesting, Doug. I have mixed feeling about the "plagerism". For thos most part, I see the copied info as generally either common themes or insignificant fillers. However, I find the quotes where he claimed to have come from Rebazar to have been done in really poor taste... and perhaps not a great move in his part ???
              What are your on that stuff ?
              I agree with you that plagiarism is not the real issue. I think the fact that many felt The Far Country was a transcription of an actual dialog means this matter of plagiarism shows them a very different picture. It means the words really came from Paul's pen, with help from other authors, and not word for word from Rebazar Tarzs.
              As for poor taste, I think it looks a lot differently now. I can look back at some of my early writings and see strong similarities with Paul's books. He influenced me significantly. Let's say I decided to leave ECKANKAR and start writing for some other teacher. Let's say I took some of my old writings and just re-worked them to fit with the new teachings. Now, somebody eventually sees that my writings are almost word for word from some of Paul's writings. Now it looks like I was "stealing" from ECKANKAR, and that the new teacher is just a spin-off.
              It's all a matter of perspective.
              I think Paul was clearly influenced by Johnson's books. He obviously liked them enough that he covered a lot of the same material, and even used very similar words in many cases, when he wrote The Far Country. However, he was also writing this at the same time as he handed Kirpal Singh his first draft of The Tiger's Fang. If Kirpal had not rejected his efforts, I believe Kirpal's students would have looked at The Far Country far differently.
              On the other hand, I don't really know what Paul was thinking when he wrote this book. I do like The Far Country far more than Johnson's books, so I'm glad he wrote it. However, I do think that it is a serious negative to his popularity in the public sector. I'm not sure Paul would mind too much about that. - Doug.

              http://tinyurl.com/7stz3vz

              (4) February 2004:

              "[...] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck Master were saying them? Yes. [....]"

              http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=268&page=168#m264

              (5)

              March 2007:

              [...] Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual account?
              Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
              I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, but have taken The Far Country as something different.
              So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
              I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
              These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.
              In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it was really like. [...] Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the later, wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why worry if his facts are not exactly right?

              http://tinyurl.com/7tuzbwd

              --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer <jepfeiffer@...> wrote:
              >
              > Prometheus,
              >  
              > You have no idea how comforting your comments are to me.  It gives me peace of mind to know that others did have them too.  Thank you for being such a wise soul.
              >  
              > Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary?  To whom did he tell this and why?  The circus of eckankar is mind boggling.  The more I hear from experienced eckist, the harder it is to believe that it can stand as an organization.  It appears like a house of cards.  Do you think more people are becoming disenchanted with eckankar and do you think the org is losing ground?  I have read they exaggerate their membership by counting anyone who has ever attended an eck event.  Any ideas?
              >  
              > Thanks
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
              > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)
              > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:33 PM
              >
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > Hello Janice and All,
              > Interesting. I think I'll
              > share some comments
              > to your insights below.
              >
              > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
              > "Prometheus,
              >
              > Now that is very interesting.
              >
              > I, myself, felt I suffered some kind of an attack about a year or so before I got out. I believe it happened because I just wasn't falling in line like a good little eckist but maybe I was robbed of energy. My experience was that I was just before falling asleep one night and I heard a loud voice which used a word I couldn't remember later. I know it started with a P.
              >
              > Anyway, as this word was being shouted, I got a jolt of some kind and then I felt a wave of nausea and weakness. This wasn't a dream but I was only half awake. The voice I heard wasn't wimpy sounding klemp. It was a strong male voice. A few nights later, I did dream that an ugly looking little troll like figure came into my room and stood gazing at me through the metal barks on the foot board of my bed. In my dream I told it to get out now and never come back. It did.
              >
              > Then I started having dreams that portrayed the eck master rebazar as being a thief and a con artist. The experience was weird and the dreams were even more so. While an early eckist, I guess rebazar was my favorite character. He seemed the most spiritual at the time. I found it very confusing to have these dreams.
              >
              > I began to realize how stale my life had become. I was in a long term relationship with a high initiate. I started asking the questions that got me yelled at by the area resa. I had read nothing but eck teachings since becoming an eckist. I thought while an ekist there was true beauty in the teachings."
              >
              > ME (Prometheus): I know that
              > many of us have had similar
              > experiences of being attacked
              > by negative entities and having
              > to defend ourselves. In this case
              > your RESA was, also, one of these
              > negative beings. Too bad you
              > couldn't protect yourself from
              > them, but it's deceptive when
              > one has placed trust in a RESA
              > by assuming they are always
              > positive and always on your side.
              > They are as closed minded and
              > defensive as is any religionist
              > when protecting their dogma
              > from too much scrutiny.
              >
              > "And so I began to see eckankar with all its manipulation and how it attempts to break a person down. I walked away and I started reading all the things I would not read as an eckist. It took me about another year to start feeling like a normal person. I must say that the attack seemed to be aimed at my brain and not my heart as these great ones of eckankar claim in theirs writings. It didn't appear to be a positive thing and I wondered if an attempt had been made to harm me since I wasn't conforming properly. I didn't insult people or even respond to them with rudeness but I did maintain my right to privacy on many occasions when asked personal questions. Privacy doesn't seem to be respected in eckankar and a lot of eckist were usually telling stories about the personal lives of other eckist."
              >
              > ME: Yes. One has to give-in and give-up.
              > Some say, Let-go and Let-God. But, with
              > ECKankar they will say to remain skeptical
              > until you can "prove it" to yourself. But,
              > the catch is that there's a time limit for
              > being skeptical. True, when one seeks
              > the "Truth" via introspection and uses
              > meditation/contemplation one will change
              > and see with new eyes, but that's not due
              > to any fake Mahanta or borrowed and
              > tweaked Sant Mat dogma. One will naturally
              > dream and imagine all sorts of things
              > when attention is placed upon these
              > areas and topics. That's what Twitchell
              > and every other conman knew and uses
              > and what Klemp continues to use as
              > a hook. It's a slight-of-hand deception
              > the magician uses while the viewer's
              > attention is distracted elsewhere.
              >
              >
              > "I think some higher part of me was showing me the truth behind eckankar after the attack but I never associated the experience with demons. I am not sure demons are real and separate entities. I have always felt that a lot of Christians will declare anything evil or demonic that threatens their views so if I read what they have to say, I dismiss a lot of it. If evil didn't exist then Christianity wouldn't have a reason to exist. This article starts out like most religious hipe but they did make a few good points about the destructive nature of eckankar."
              >
              > ME: I'm, also, not so sure that demons
              > are real. It could very well be that demons
              > are metaphors for those things that bother
              > and bind us to negativity, fear, self-doubt
              > and even to self-loathing. Actually, isn't
              > all religious dogma full of hidden metaphors?
              > This is where the fanatics and the fundamentalists
              > have problems since they tend to pick and
              > choose what is easy for them to believe
              > since they tend to be more simple-minded
              > and tend to see most everything in literal,
              > narrow, terms.
              >
              >
              > "I honestly believe that klemp thinks he is the living eck master and he thinks he is doing a lot of good. I think he is just the puppet for the more scheming higher ups. I really don't s
              > see anything really outstanding about klemp at all. That was my biggest problem with eckankar. When I would do the gazing at the mahanta thing using klemps picture, all I could see was a sickly looking man. He even looked miserable. I saw no power. He wasn't charismatic. He wasn't very intelligent and he had no creative ability that I could see. He like twitchell seemed to need to draw from sources outside of eckankar for spiritual inspiration and his attempts were to me at times comical. As long as he was being told he was the great eck master, he probably was easily controlled by the gang of money hounds making up corporate eckankar."
              >
              > ME: Klemp is the Higher Up.
              > He had the by-laws changed
              > after he took over from D.G.
              > and neither the President nor
              > the EK Board has any voting
              > authority. Only Klemp can hire
              > and fire. The local Satsang
              > Societies and local Boards have
              > been set up the same (As Above).
              > Thus, the RESAs can hire and
              > fire the local Presidents and
              > Board members and the votes
              > of Board members carry no
              > authority! The RESA has the
              > sole authority, unless, a higher
              > authority at the ESC steps in.
              > However, when this is done
              > it is always with the approval
              > of Klemp and under his direction.
              >
              >
              > "It is true that eckankar gets rid of things that were written by twitchell and others that the average person would think is not spiritual. I never heard of twitchells written rantings about his great power and influence so by the time I was in, I guess it had been removed from print."
              >
              > ME: "Difficulties Of Becoming The Living
              > ECK Master" was the best book written
              > depicting Twitchell's egomaniacal rants.
              > There were three interviews done around
              > June 1971 while PT was the full blown
              > self-proclaimed Mahanta. What's amazing
              > is that after all of these years he's still
              > lying about his past. Klemp has stated
              > on Eckankar.org that Twit was "exaggerating"
              > and "twisting facts" to get into Kentucky's
              > Who's Who and had never traveled all that
              > far from home. Yet, Twitchell (in this June,
              > 1971 interview), is saying he was almost
              > 16 years old when he, first, went from
              > Paris to India, with his sister, to be with
              > Sudar Singh. There are more examples
              > that are even more outlandish. Paul's
              > comments about how he confused things
              > and screwed up paperwork so that he
              > could take it easy during the start of
              > WWII showed a level of subversion and
              > sabotage that even the Nazis couldn't
              > accomplish!
              >
              > "I've never talked about the experience before because I found it so confusing and during that time, I wondered if I had gotten a little bit nuts to even have those things. Any feed back from more knowledgeable eckist would be greatly appreciated. I don't know about demons but it was strange and enough to cause the process of breaking the chains of eckankar for me. They need more slaves to bring in recruits for more money and more influence. I wasn't doing that. I am thankful that although I did perform tasks for the local area, I did not drag a single soul into eckankar. Well, not that I know of anyway. Guess I wasn't a very good eckiest. I wasn't capable of it and I am ashamed of myself for ever being a member. Coming out of it, I think most people feel dumb, gullible and used."
              >
              > ME: I think that we all have to get
              > over the guilt and shame of being
              > tricked. Look at all of those who
              > belong to a religion and donate
              > time and money in order to get
              > their "feel good" fix. Religions
              > are types of opiates... Eckankar
              > too! People need to believe in
              > something that can give them
              > hope and to help them to maintain
              > a positive outlook. And, conmen
              > know what people want and need.
              > Attitude is, also, important but
              > there's a fine line between being
              > positive and being delusional.
              > Sometimes it's difficult to know
              > where to draw the line and some
              > of us have more difficulty with
              > seeing the good versus seeing
              > the bad. However, I don't think
              > that seeing the glass half-empty
              > is always wrong, but it does present
              > more of a challenge to overcome.
              >
              > "Something else kind of made me realize that eckankar wasn't healthy. I am by no means saying that all eckist have mental problems. Some of them had a great need to talk to some one. I listened a lot. Anyway, I was told by some eckist that they were diagnosed with severe mental conditions previously or since becoming eckist. But why couldn't this great living eck master help them over come these things or at least help them adjust better to the physical world? If the living eck master had to go nuts to find his spiritual power does that mean it is necessary to become a spiritually enlightened being? Why does klemp describe his psychotic episode as something spiritual, when no one with a sound mind or high spiritual powers, would remove their clothes in public? Not in my opinion anyway. Is it because after being proclaimed the living eck master, it might be revealed by the media and so it was woven into a spiritual experience as kind of a necessary
              > ordeal? Did he go psychotic because he was attempting to follow in twitchells shoes and he mentally duplicated twithells experience?"
              >
              > ME: I don't believe that Twitchell
              > ever needed to jump off a bridge
              > and do a strip tease at an airport
              > and choose jail or a mental institution
              > in order to "find God." Besides, Twit
              > was a liar up to the moment of his
              > untimely death and, thus, was not
              > a "spiritual being." It was all about
              > him. Besides, many people have
              > done stupid things when confused
              > with life and have sought "spiritual
              > solutions." If one chose to, one could
              > claim that their mental missteps
              > and episodes were "spiritual
              > experiences" as Klemp has done.
              > Klemp is merely doing a 20/20
              > hindsight, and PR rewrite, to
              > excuse his mental confusion.
              > After all, HK's the leader of a
              > church and has to be above
              > and beyond reproach. It's a
              > pretend game where he has
              > to, partially, buy into the hype
              > in order to seem authentic.
              >
              > "I did meet some eckist that I still remember with fondness and who appeared to be warm caring human beings. Some appeared to be well adjusted people. Also, I just read a posting by an eckist on this article that sounded remarkably insightful and loving. Maybe it is possible to grow in eckankar."
              >
              > ME: I, too, know and remember some
              > H.I.s whom I like. They are nice people...
              > as long as they don't know who I am.
              > That could/would change I'm sure.
              > They would feel betrayed and insulted
              > and I could understand that, however,
              > that, too, would be a "spiritual" test!
              > To "grow in eckankar?" Sure, but it's
              > not due to Eckankar or because of
              > inner guidance by a fake mahanta.
              > That crap just gets in the way and
              > causes more codependency. Any
              > growth or realization leading to
              > an expanded awareness is learned
              > and earned by the individual. It's
              > their own personal and private
              > relationship to the Holy Spirit or
              > whatever one wants to call this
              > divine essence, or not, that leads
              > to a divine knowingness and to
              > contentment!
              >
              > "I had one eckist tell me that he didn't care where the teachings came from because they worked for him. I had conversations with several high initiates who were aware of the deception in eckankar and simply accepted it without any attempts to rationalize it. It appeared that the only truth that did exist for a lot of them was what ever seemed relevant at the time. One female told me, you take the parts you can use and toss the rest. I guess the idea was that with the teachings being so vast, it was up to a person to decide for themselves which ones to keep. Also, if twitchell made a habit of lying then truth wasn't anything concrete at all but something to be manipulated as needed. Well, that is what I got any from conversations. I think this concept corrodes the moral fiber of a person. Lies should not be knowingly condoned."
              >
              > ME: Actually, accepting Eckankar
              > while knowing about the deceptions
              > and lies is rationalizing. It's like,
              > if it's not broke why fix it? Or,
              > why throw the baby out with the
              > (dirty) bath water? Nothing, and
              > nobody (Klemp), in the lower worlds
              > of KAL is perfect. Thus, if it (Eckankar)
              > works why complain? H.I.s have
              > put blinders on in order to stay
              > the course and maintain their
              > prestigious positions which took
              > them decades of time and money
              > to obtain. Many have rejected, in
              > part, HK's RESA structure and the
              > ESA Guidelines. Yes, I knew of H.I.s
              > that did the same... picked and
              > chose what they wanted to follow
              > and believe. However, that's not
              > the way Eckankar is supposed to
              > work. One is supposed to take
              > the bait and swallow it hook, line,
              > and sinker! Twit, supposedly, took
              > only the best from all of the other
              > religions and experts, etc. in order
              > to create (or bring forth) the EK
              > dogma to the modern Western
              > world. Thus, how can one pick
              > and chose when it's all, supposedly,
              > relevant? If a person is not consciously
              > following the guidance and the will
              > of the LEM/Mahanta (Klemp), then,
              > they are heretics!
              >
              > "I just believe the good people just refused to see anything other than eckankar because they needed to belong to something they view as greater than anything else. They are under the eckankar spell. I still wouldn't want contact with them though. I just couldn't listen that eckankar dribble ever again and I would have to show how sorry I feel for them. It would serve no healthy purpose for me or them. So, I just remember the good and bless them in my heart."
              >
              > ME: True! It's nice to belong.
              > Humans are social animals
              > and most like to follow in
              > one way or another because
              > it's easier to follow than to
              > lead. Being a follower requires
              > less thought and energy. It's
              > less demanding, less consuming,
              > and is less stressful. It is true
              > that the Higher one is with
              > initiations, years, and titles
              > the more lost that individual
              > is. They've bought into it
              > to the extreme. Look at Marge
              > Klemp! However, the ones
              > to really feel sorry for are those
              > ESC staffers who know it's all
              > a sham and Klemp is a poser,
              > but they have to put on an act
              > in order to keep their jobs,
              > health care, retirement, etc.
              >
              >
              > "Anyway, this article named a few people that I am not familiar with. I will look them up but any info any of you can share would be appreciated. Who is Dave Marman, Bill Schnoebelen and Robert Marsh? Are these really old names in eckankar history? Bill Schnoebelen was an eckist according to this article. The other two appear to be writers."
              >
              > ME: Doug Marman is an old
              > friend of Klemp's who's an
              > apologist for Eckankar. I think
              > he's a 7th. He's got some books
              > out there that have overlooked
              > many facts and are based upon
              > lies and hearsay. What's funny,
              > however, is that Doug's stated
              > that Twitchell lied about traveling
              > to Paris, France to visit his sister
              > when it was, actually, Paris, Kentucky.
              > And, Marman's stated that Rebazar
              > was probably made up by Twitchell.
              > After all, PT needed to have
              > someone other than Kirpal Singh,
              > his real master, initiate him.
              > Thus, PT created RT in order to
              > initiate himself. Plus, Marman
              > has admitted that Twitchell
              > created the Mahanta title in
              > January 1969. Yet, Marman
              > omits all of this information
              > in his books!
              >
              > "Telling my experience wasn't easy for me. Although I tend to be a private person, I felt a need to write it.
              >
              > Thanks for giving me the opportunity Prometheus.
              >
              > May you all be blessed with good things especially fruitful spiritual experiences."
              >
              > ME: Thanks for sharing this.
              > It was interesting for me to
              > comment.
              >
              >
              > prometheus wrote:
              >
              > This is an entertaining approach.
              >
              > http://www.scribd.com/doc/8967961/The-DARK-SIDE-of-ECKANKAR-by-Ruth-and-Noah-Samuelson
              >
              > Prometheus
              >

            • prometheus_973
              Hello All, What I found interesting is that Klemp mentions Kirpal s name 15 times and Sudar s name 4 times. Just check the Twitchell info on Eckankar.org and
              Message 6 of 14 , May 9 10:47 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello All,
                What I found interesting
                is that Klemp mentions
                Kirpal's name 15 times
                and Sudar's name 4 times.

                Just check the Twitchell
                info on Eckankar.org and
                count it up for yourselves.
                HK mentions that Twit had
                a falling out with Kirpal
                (for some unknown reason)
                and that Kirpal had possession
                of Paul's "The Tiger's Fang"
                manuscript which he, later,
                returned circa June, 1966.

                The "falling out" was because
                Paul had "exaggerated" and
                "twisted facts" as Klemp states
                Twit had done at age 27 (1935)
                to get into Who's Who in Kentucky.

                Even though the Tiger's Fang
                story made Kirpal (aka Rebazar,
                et al.) appear to be a great master,
                it also made Paul look like a
                Master as well. PT was using
                Kirpal to self-promote himself
                and Kirpal was aware of Paul's
                scam to place himself on a
                plane of consciousness near
                Kirpal's!

                Think about this. Would Klemp
                allow similar stories to be published
                in EK Newsletters that would
                place low level EKists on these
                Higher Planes? Never! Klemp
                would see it as a challenge to
                his authority just as Kirpal did.

                It's obvious that Kirpal Singh
                was Paul's true master and
                not Sudar Singh.

                What's this mean?

                Well, it means that Paul
                lied and there are EK books
                that perpetuate this same
                lie.

                It also means that Sudar
                never existed. Thus, Paul
                was never initiated by Sudar
                into ECKankar. If anything,
                Paul was initiated into Radhasoami
                by Kirpal Singh (btw- Radhasoami
                is a sect of Ruhani Satsang).

                And, this means that Eckankar
                is, actually, a sect of the sect
                of Radhasoami. Look at the
                dogma! Eckankar's is practically
                identical to Radhasoami and
                to Ruhani Satsang. Sects, basically,
                follow the same dogma of the
                original teaching but tend
                to do some tweaking due to
                a falling out regarding leadership.

                Regardless of tapes that Twit
                made, after-the-fact and about
                fake masters like Rebazar, we
                still have the June, 1971 interviews
                that Twit did for "Difficulties
                Of Becoming The Living ECK Master."

                What Paul lied about in June 1971
                as the "Full" Mahanta (created in 1969)
                is more important than what he said
                earlier.

                Plus, we have the Timelines which
                show more of PT's lies.

                And, we have Klemp, on Eckankar.org,
                stating that Kirpal Singh had possession
                of PT's "The Tiger's Fang" manuscript.
                This was a manuscript... not a book!

                Plus, we have Klemp stating that
                Twitchell was a liar who "exaggerated"
                and "twisted facts" along with several
                on-going comments about Paul being
                a (somewhat shameless) self-promoter.

                The sum of these facts make it
                almost impossible for any objective
                person Not to be able to see the
                truth and connect-the-dots and
                know, without a reasonable doubt,
                that Twitchell was a fake master,
                plagiarist, and a conman.

                Prometheus


                Janice wrote:

                Thank you etznab for clarifying.

                Etznab wrote:

                "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"

                Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original links/threads for complete context.)

                To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is still a long post though.

                (1)

                Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online book:

                [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day I [Doug Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in the box. It was a personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his home. It sounded like Paul was experimenting again. This time he was trying to create an audio version of something like Dialogues With The Master.

                The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs. Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely sound, saying something like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicking the voice of Rebazar Tarzs! The tape went on to give a discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic. This was so long ago I can't remember much more than that, but the tape was amazing to me, and I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it today.

                So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had ever heard anything about it before. He immediately became interested, told me that it was news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I told Darwin that I had left it in my apartment with all the other tapes I was sorting through, but I would run home to get it for him. I immediately jumped up to head for my car.

                It was at this point that Darwin said something that left me with a deep impression. He saw that I was hurrying toward my car in my desire to get the tape for him, and he said, "Take your time." He then paused, as if he was saying something very important, and he added, "There is never any reason to rush." [... .]

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

                (2)

                July 2001:

                "The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT my invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it. - [David Lane?]

                Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't David show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought that? Kirpal makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's Fang, which in its first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but was changed to Rebazar Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967. [....]" - [Doug Marman?]

                http://tinyurl.com/4x3kl25

                (3)

                July 2003:

                Interesting, Doug. I have mixed feeling about the "plagerism". For thos most part, I see the copied info as generally either common themes or insignificant fillers. However, I find the quotes where he claimed to have come from Rebazar to have been done in really poor taste... and perhaps not a great move in his part ???
                What are your on that stuff ?
                I agree with you that plagiarism is not the real issue. I think the fact that many felt The Far Country was a transcription of an actual dialog means this matter of plagiarism shows them a very different picture. It means the words really came from Paul's pen, with help from other authors, and not word for word from Rebazar Tarzs.
                As for poor taste, I think it looks a lot differently now. I can look back at some of my early writings and see strong similarities with Paul's books. He influenced me significantly. Let's say I decided to leave ECKANKAR and start writing for some other teacher. Let's say I took some of my old writings and just re-worked them to fit with the new teachings. Now, somebody eventually sees that my writings are almost word for word from some of Paul's writings. Now it looks like I was "stealing" from ECKANKAR, and that the new teacher is just a spin-off.
                It's all a matter of perspective.
                I think Paul was clearly influenced by Johnson's books. He obviously liked them enough that he covered a lot of the same material, and even used very similar words in many cases, when he wrote The Far Country. However, he was also writing this at the same time as he handed Kirpal Singh his first draft of The Tiger's Fang. If Kirpal had not rejected his efforts, I believe Kirpal's students would have looked at The Far Country far differently.
                On the other hand, I don't really know what Paul was thinking when he wrote this book. I do like The Far Country far more than Johnson's books, so I'm glad he wrote it. However, I do think that it is a serious negative to his popularity in the public sector. I'm not sure Paul would mind too much about that. - Doug.

                http://tinyurl.com/7stz3vz

                (4) February 2004:

                "[...] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck Master were saying them? Yes. [....]"

                http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=268&page=168#m264

                (5)

                March 2007:

                [...] Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual account?
                Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
                I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, but have taken The Far Country as something different.
                So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
                I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
                These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.
                In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it was really like. [...] Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was he trying to write about historical facts, or was he describing spiritual truth? If the later, wouldn't it be best to review his works in this light? Why worry if his facts are not exactly right?

                http://tinyurl.com/7tuzbwd

                --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer <jepfeiffer@...> wrote:
                >
                > Prometheus,
                > Â
                > You have no idea how comforting your comments are to me. It gives me peace of mind to know that others did have them too. Thank you for being such a wise soul.
                > Â
                > Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why? The circus of eckankar is mind boggling. The more I hear from experienced eckist, the harder it is to believe that it can stand as an organization. It appears like a house of cards. Do you think more people are becoming disenchanted with eckankar and do you think the org is losing ground? I have read they exaggerate their membership by counting anyone who has ever attended an eck event. Any ideas?
                > Â
                > Thanks
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar (Revisited)
                > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:33 PM
                >
                >
                >
                > Â
                >
                >
                >
                > Hello Janice and All,
                > Interesting. I think I'll
                > share some comments
                > to your insights below.
                >
                > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
                > "Prometheus,
                >
                > Now that is very interesting.
                >
                > I, myself, felt I suffered some kind of an attack about a year or so before I got out. I believe it happened because I just wasn't falling in line like a good little eckist but maybe I was robbed of energy. My experience was that I was just before falling asleep one night and I heard a loud voice which used a word I couldn't remember later. I know it started with a P.
                >
                > Anyway, as this word was being shouted, I got a jolt of some kind and then I felt a wave of nausea and weakness. This wasn't a dream but I was only half awake. The voice I heard wasn't wimpy sounding klemp. It was a strong male voice. A few nights later, I did dream that an ugly looking little troll like figure came into my room and stood gazing at me through the metal barks on the foot board of my bed. In my dream I told it to get out now and never come back. It did.
                >
                > Then I started having dreams that portrayed the eck master rebazar as being a thief and a con artist. The experience was weird and the dreams were even more so. While an early eckist, I guess rebazar was my favorite character. He seemed the most spiritual at the time. I found it very confusing to have these dreams.
                >
                > I began to realize how stale my life had become. I was in a long term relationship with a high initiate. I started asking the questions that got me yelled at by the area resa. I had read nothing but eck teachings since becoming an eckist. I thought while an ekist there was true beauty in the teachings."
                >
                > ME (Prometheus): I know that
                > many of us have had similar
                > experiences of being attacked
                > by negative entities and having
                > to defend ourselves. In this case
                > your RESA was, also, one of these
                > negative beings. Too bad you
                > couldn't protect yourself from
                > them, but it's deceptive when
                > one has placed trust in a RESA
                > by assuming they are always
                > positive and always on your side.
                > They are as closed minded and
                > defensive as is any religionist
                > when protecting their dogma
                > from too much scrutiny.
                >
                > "And so I began to see eckankar with all its manipulation and how it attempts to break a person down. I walked away and I started reading all the things I would not read as an eckist. It took me about another year to start feeling like a normal person. I must say that the attack seemed to be aimed at my brain and not my heart as these great ones of eckankar claim in theirs writings. It didn't appear to be a positive thing and I wondered if an attempt had been made to harm me since I wasn't conforming properly. I didn't insult people or even respond to them with rudeness but I did maintain my right to privacy on many occasions when asked personal questions. Privacy doesn't seem to be respected in eckankar and a lot of eckist were usually telling stories about the personal lives of other eckist."
                >
                > ME: Yes. One has to give-in and give-up.
                > Some say, Let-go and Let-God. But, with
                > ECKankar they will say to remain skeptical
                > until you can "prove it" to yourself. But,
                > the catch is that there's a time limit for
                > being skeptical. True, when one seeks
                > the "Truth" via introspection and uses
                > meditation/contemplation one will change
                > and see with new eyes, but that's not due
                > to any fake Mahanta or borrowed and
                > tweaked Sant Mat dogma. One will naturally
                > dream and imagine all sorts of things
                > when attention is placed upon these
                > areas and topics. That's what Twitchell
                > and every other conman knew and uses
                > and what Klemp continues to use as
                > a hook. It's a slight-of-hand deception
                > the magician uses while the viewer's
                > attention is distracted elsewhere.
                >
                >
                > "I think some higher part of me was showing me the truth behind eckankar after the attack but I never associated the experience with demons. I am not sure demons are real and separate entities. I have always felt that a lot of Christians will declare anything evil or demonic that threatens their views so if I read what they have to say, I dismiss a lot of it. If evil didn't exist then Christianity wouldn't have a reason to exist. This article starts out like most religious hipe but they did make a few good points about the destructive nature of eckankar."
                >
                > ME: I'm, also, not so sure that demons
                > are real. It could very well be that demons
                > are metaphors for those things that bother
                > and bind us to negativity, fear, self-doubt
                > and even to self-loathing. Actually, isn't
                > all religious dogma full of hidden metaphors?
                > This is where the fanatics and the fundamentalists
                > have problems since they tend to pick and
                > choose what is easy for them to believe
                > since they tend to be more simple-minded
                > and tend to see most everything in literal,
                > narrow, terms.
                >
                >
                > "I honestly believe that klemp thinks he is the living eck master and he thinks he is doing a lot of good. I think he is just the puppet for the more scheming higher ups. I really don't s
                > see anything really outstanding about klemp at all. That was my biggest problem with eckankar. When I would do the gazing at the mahanta thing using klemps picture, all I could see was a sickly looking man. He even looked miserable. I saw no power. He wasn't charismatic. He wasn't very intelligent and he had no creative ability that I could see. He like twitchell seemed to need to draw from sources outside of eckankar for spiritual inspiration and his attempts were to me at times comical. As long as he was being told he was the great eck master, he probably was easily controlled by the gang of money hounds making up corporate eckankar."
                >
                > ME: Klemp is the Higher Up.
                > He had the by-laws changed
                > after he took over from D.G.
                > and neither the President nor
                > the EK Board has any voting
                > authority. Only Klemp can hire
                > and fire. The local Satsang
                > Societies and local Boards have
                > been set up the same (As Above).
                > Thus, the RESAs can hire and
                > fire the local Presidents and
                > Board members and the votes
                > of Board members carry no
                > authority! The RESA has the
                > sole authority, unless, a higher
                > authority at the ESC steps in.
                > However, when this is done
                > it is always with the approval
                > of Klemp and under his direction.
                >
                >
                > "It is true that eckankar gets rid of things that were written by twitchell and others that the average person would think is not spiritual. I never heard of twitchells written rantings about his great power and influence so by the time I was in, I guess it had been removed from print."
                >
                > ME: "Difficulties Of Becoming The Living
                > ECK Master" was the best book written
                > depicting Twitchell's egomaniacal rants.
                > There were three interviews done around
                > June 1971 while PT was the full blown
                > self-proclaimed Mahanta. What's amazing
                > is that after all of these years he's still
                > lying about his past. Klemp has stated
                > on Eckankar.org that Twit was "exaggerating"
                > and "twisting facts" to get into Kentucky's
                > Who's Who and had never traveled all that
                > far from home. Yet, Twitchell (in this June,
                > 1971 interview), is saying he was almost
                > 16 years old when he, first, went from
                > Paris to India, with his sister, to be with
                > Sudar Singh. There are more examples
                > that are even more outlandish. Paul's
                > comments about how he confused things
                > and screwed up paperwork so that he
                > could take it easy during the start of
                > WWII showed a level of subversion and
                > sabotage that even the Nazis couldn't
                > accomplish!
                >
                > "I've never talked about the experience before because I found it so confusing and during that time, I wondered if I had gotten a little bit nuts to even have those things. Any feed back from more knowledgeable eckist would be greatly appreciated. I don't know about demons but it was strange and enough to cause the process of breaking the chains of eckankar for me. They need more slaves to bring in recruits for more money and more influence. I wasn't doing that. I am thankful that although I did perform tasks for the local area, I did not drag a single soul into eckankar. Well, not that I know of anyway. Guess I wasn't a very good eckiest. I wasn't capable of it and I am ashamed of myself for ever being a member. Coming out of it, I think most people feel dumb, gullible and used."
                >
                > ME: I think that we all have to get
                > over the guilt and shame of being
                > tricked. Look at all of those who
                > belong to a religion and donate
                > time and money in order to get
                > their "feel good" fix. Religions
                > are types of opiates... Eckankar
                > too! People need to believe in
                > something that can give them
                > hope and to help them to maintain
                > a positive outlook. And, conmen
                > know what people want and need.
                > Attitude is, also, important but
                > there's a fine line between being
                > positive and being delusional.
                > Sometimes it's difficult to know
                > where to draw the line and some
                > of us have more difficulty with
                > seeing the good versus seeing
                > the bad. However, I don't think
                > that seeing the glass half-empty
                > is always wrong, but it does present
                > more of a challenge to overcome.
                >
                > "Something else kind of made me realize that eckankar wasn't healthy. I am by no means saying that all eckist have mental problems. Some of them had a great need to talk to some one. I listened a lot. Anyway, I was told by some eckist that they were diagnosed with severe mental conditions previously or since becoming eckist. But why couldn't this great living eck master help them over come these things or at least help them adjust better to the physical world? If the living eck master had to go nuts to find his spiritual power does that mean it is necessary to become a spiritually enlightened being? Why does klemp describe his psychotic episode as something spiritual, when no one with a sound mind or high spiritual powers, would remove their clothes in public? Not in my opinion anyway. Is it because after being proclaimed the living eck master, it might be revealed by the media and so it was woven into a spiritual experience as kind of a necessary
                > ordeal? Did he go psychotic because he was attempting to follow in twitchells shoes and he mentally duplicated twithells experience?"
                >
                > ME: I don't believe that Twitchell
                > ever needed to jump off a bridge
                > and do a strip tease at an airport
                > and choose jail or a mental institution
                > in order to "find God." Besides, Twit
                > was a liar up to the moment of his
                > untimely death and, thus, was not
                > a "spiritual being." It was all about
                > him. Besides, many people have
                > done stupid things when confused
                > with life and have sought "spiritual
                > solutions." If one chose to, one could
                > claim that their mental missteps
                > and episodes were "spiritual
                > experiences" as Klemp has done.
                > Klemp is merely doing a 20/20
                > hindsight, and PR rewrite, to
                > excuse his mental confusion.
                > After all, HK's the leader of a
                > church and has to be above
                > and beyond reproach. It's a
                > pretend game where he has
                > to, partially, buy into the hype
                > in order to seem authentic.
                >
                > "I did meet some eckist that I still remember with fondness and who appeared to be warm caring human beings. Some appeared to be well adjusted people. Also, I just read a posting by an eckist on this article that sounded remarkably insightful and loving. Maybe it is possible to grow in eckankar."
                >
                > ME: I, too, know and remember some
                > H.I.s whom I like. They are nice people...
                > as long as they don't know who I am.
                > That could/would change I'm sure.
                > They would feel betrayed and insulted
                > and I could understand that, however,
                > that, too, would be a "spiritual" test!
                > To "grow in eckankar?" Sure, but it's
                > not due to Eckankar or because of
                > inner guidance by a fake mahanta.
                > That crap just gets in the way and
                > causes more codependency. Any
                > growth or realization leading to
                > an expanded awareness is learned
                > and earned by the individual. It's
                > their own personal and private
                > relationship to the Holy Spirit or
                > whatever one wants to call this
                > divine essence, or not, that leads
                > to a divine knowingness and to
                > contentment!
                >
                > "I had one eckist tell me that he didn't care where the teachings came from because they worked for him. I had conversations with several high initiates who were aware of the deception in eckankar and simply accepted it without any attempts to rationalize it. It appeared that the only truth that did exist for a lot of them was what ever seemed relevant at the time. One female told me, you take the parts you can use and toss the rest. I guess the idea was that with the teachings being so vast, it was up to a person to decide for themselves which ones to keep. Also, if twitchell made a habit of lying then truth wasn't anything concrete at all but something to be manipulated as needed. Well, that is what I got any from conversations. I think this concept corrodes the moral fiber of a person. Lies should not be knowingly condoned."
                >
                > ME: Actually, accepting Eckankar
                > while knowing about the deceptions
                > and lies is rationalizing. It's like,
                > if it's not broke why fix it? Or,
                > why throw the baby out with the
                > (dirty) bath water? Nothing, and
                > nobody (Klemp), in the lower worlds
                > of KAL is perfect. Thus, if it (Eckankar)
                > works why complain? H.I.s have
                > put blinders on in order to stay
                > the course and maintain their
                > prestigious positions which took
                > them decades of time and money
                > to obtain. Many have rejected, in
                > part, HK's RESA structure and the
                > ESA Guidelines. Yes, I knew of H.I.s
                > that did the same... picked and
                > chose what they wanted to follow
                > and believe. However, that's not
                > the way Eckankar is supposed to
                > work. One is supposed to take
                > the bait and swallow it hook, line,
                > and sinker! Twit, supposedly, took
                > only the best from all of the other
                > religions and experts, etc. in order
                > to create (or bring forth) the EK
                > dogma to the modern Western
                > world. Thus, how can one pick
                > and chose when it's all, supposedly,
                > relevant? If a person is not consciously
                > following the guidance and the will
                > of the LEM/Mahanta (Klemp), then,
                > they are heretics!
                >
                > "I just believe the good people just refused to see anything other than eckankar because they needed to belong to something they view as greater than anything else. They are under the eckankar spell. I still wouldn't want contact with them though. I just couldn't listen that eckankar dribble ever again and I would have to show how sorry I feel for them. It would serve no healthy purpose for me or them. So, I just remember the good and bless them in my heart."
                >
                > ME: True! It's nice to belong.
                > Humans are social animals
                > and most like to follow in
                > one way or another because
                > it's easier to follow than to
                > lead. Being a follower requires
                > less thought and energy. It's
                > less demanding, less consuming,
                > and is less stressful. It is true
                > that the Higher one is with
                > initiations, years, and titles
                > the more lost that individual
                > is. They've bought into it
                > to the extreme. Look at Marge
                > Klemp! However, the ones
                > to really feel sorry for are those
                > ESC staffers who know it's all
                > a sham and Klemp is a poser,
                > but they have to put on an act
                > in order to keep their jobs,
                > health care, retirement, etc.
                >
                >
                > "Anyway, this article named a few people that I am not familiar with. I will look them up but any info any of you can share would be appreciated. Who is Dave Marman, Bill Schnoebelen and Robert Marsh? Are these really old names in eckankar history? Bill Schnoebelen was an eckist according to this article. The other two appear to be writers."
                >
                > ME: Doug Marman is an old
                > friend of Klemp's who's an
                > apologist for Eckankar. I think
                > he's a 7th. He's got some books
                > out there that have overlooked
                > many facts and are based upon
                > lies and hearsay. What's funny,
                > however, is that Doug's stated
                > that Twitchell lied about traveling
                > to Paris, France to visit his sister
                > when it was, actually, Paris, Kentucky.
                > And, Marman's stated that Rebazar
                > was probably made up by Twitchell.
                > After all, PT needed to have
                > someone other than Kirpal Singh,
                > his real master, initiate him.
                > Thus, PT created RT in order to
                > initiate himself. Plus, Marman
                > has admitted that Twitchell
                > created the Mahanta title in
                > January 1969. Yet, Marman
                > omits all of this information
                > in his books!
                >
                > "Telling my experience wasn't easy for me. Although I tend to be a private person, I felt a need to write it.
                >
                > Thanks for giving me the opportunity Prometheus.
                >
                > May you all be blessed with good things especially fruitful spiritual experiences."
                >
                > ME: Thanks for sharing this.
                > It was interesting for me to
                > comment.
                >
                >
                > prometheus wrote:
                >
                > This is an entertaining approach.
                >
                > http://www.scribd.com/doc/8967961/The-DARK-SIDE-of-ECKANKAR-by-Ruth-and-Noah-Samuelson
                >
                > Prometheus
              • etznab@aol.com
                Nice post there. Lots of good points. Thanks. ... From: prometheus_973 To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
                Message 7 of 14 , May 10 3:35 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nice post there. Lots of good points. Thanks.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                  To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
                  <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Wed, May 9, 2012 12:48 pm
                  Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of ECKankar
                  (Revisited)

                   
                  Hello All,
                  What I found interesting
                  is that Klemp mentions
                  Kirpal's name 15 times
                  and Sudar's name 4 times.

                  Just check the Twitchell
                  info on Eckankar.org and
                  count it up for yourselves.
                  HK mentions that Twit had
                  a falling out with Kirpal
                  (for some unknown reason)
                  and that Kirpal had possession
                  of Paul's "The Tiger's Fang"
                  manuscript which he, later,
                  returned circa June, 1966.

                  The "falling out" was because
                  Paul had "exaggerated" and
                  "twisted facts" as Klemp states
                  Twit had done at age 27 (1935)
                  to get into Who's Who in Kentucky.

                  Even though the Tiger's Fang
                  story made Kirpal (aka Rebazar,
                  et al.) appear to be a great master,
                  it also made Paul look like a
                  Master as well. PT was using
                  Kirpal to self-promote himself
                  and Kirpal was aware of Paul's
                  scam to place himself on a
                  plane of consciousness near
                  Kirpal's!

                  Think about this. Would Klemp
                  allow similar stories to be published
                  in EK Newsletters that would
                  place low level EKists on these
                  Higher Planes? Never! Klemp
                  would see it as a challenge to
                  his authority just as Kirpal did.

                  It's obvious that Kirpal Singh
                  was Paul's true master and
                  not Sudar Singh.

                  What's this mean?

                  Well, it means that Paul
                  lied and there are EK books
                  that perpetuate this same
                  lie.

                  It also means that Sudar
                  never existed. Thus, Paul
                  was never initiated by Sudar
                  into ECKankar. If anything,
                  Paul was initiated into Radhasoami
                  by Kirpal Singh (btw- Radhasoami
                  is a sect of Ruhani Satsang).

                  And, this means that Eckankar
                  is, actually, a sect of the sect
                  of Radhasoami. Look at the
                  dogma! Eckankar's is practically
                  identical to Radhasoami and
                  to Ruhani Satsang. Sects, basically,
                  follow the same dogma of the
                  original teaching but tend
                  to do some tweaking due to
                  a falling out regarding leadership.

                  Regardless of tapes that Twit
                  made, after-the-fact and about
                  fake masters like Rebazar, we
                  still have the June, 1971 interviews
                  that Twit did for "Difficulties
                  Of Becoming The Living ECK Master."

                  What Paul lied about in June 1971
                  as the "Full" Mahanta (created in 1969)
                  is more important than what he said
                  earlier.

                  Plus, we have the Timelines which
                  show more of PT's lies.

                  And, we have Klemp, on Eckankar.org,
                  stating that Kirpal Singh had possession
                  of PT's "The Tiger's Fang" manuscript.
                  This was a manuscript... not a book!

                  Plus, we have Klemp stating that
                  Twitchell was a liar who "exaggerated"
                  and "twisted facts" along with several
                  on-going comments about Paul being
                  a (somewhat shameless) self-promoter.

                  The sum of these facts make it
                  almost impossible for any objective
                  person Not to be able to see the
                  truth and connect-the-dots and
                  know, without a reasonable doubt,
                  that Twitchell was a fake master,
                  plagiarist, and a conman.

                  Prometheus

                  Janice wrote:

                  Thank you etznab for clarifying.

                  Etznab wrote:

                  "Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman
                  admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and why?"

                  Some select trivia about Rebazar Tarzs. (See original links/threads for
                  complete context.)

                  To try and save space I chose to illustrate excerpts only. This is
                  still a long post though.

                  (1)

                  Reference to event from 1970s shared in Doug Marman's 2001 online book:

                  [...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my
                  self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day
                  I [Doug Marman] told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in
                  the box. It was a personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his
                  home. It sounded like Paul was experimenting again. This time he was
                  trying to create an audio version of something like Dialogues With The
                  Master.

                  The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs.
                  Then we hear Paul's voice lower into a deep, gravely sound, saying
                  something like, "Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicking the
                  voice of Rebazar Tarzs! The tape went on to give a discourse from
                  Rebazar on a spiritual topic. This was so long ago I can't remember
                  much more than that, but the tape was amazing to me, and I wish I could
                  hear it again to see what I might think of it today.

                  So, when I told Darwin about the tape, I asked him if he had ever heard
                  anything about it before. He immediately became interested, told me
                  that it was news to him, and asked if I could get it for him. I told
                  Darwin that I had left it in my apartment with all the other tapes I
                  was sorting through, but I would run home to get it for him. I
                  immediately jumped up to head for my car.

                  It was at this point that Darwin said something that left me with a
                  deep impression. He saw that I was hurrying toward my car in my desire
                  to get the tape for him, and he said, "Take your time." He then paused,
                  as if he was saying something very important, and he added, "There is
                  never any reason to rush." [... .]

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

                  (2)

                  July 2001:

                  "The idea of Twitchell denying his association with Kirpal Singh is NOT
                  my invention. Kirpal Singh thought Twitchell was denying it. - [David
                  Lane?]

                  Kirpal "thought" Twitchell was denying it. How interesting. Why doesn't
                  David show us the rest of the quote, which explains why Kirpal thought
                  that? Kirpal makes it very clear that he is referring to The Tiger's
                  Fang, which in its first draft mentioned Kirpal as Paul's teacher, but
                  was changed to Rebazar Tarzs by the time it was published in 1967.
                  [....]" - [Doug Marman?]

                  http://tinyurl.com/4x3kl25

                  (3)

                  July 2003:

                  Interesting, Doug. I have mixed feeling about the "plagerism". For thos
                  most part, I see the copied info as generally either common themes or
                  insignificant fillers. However, I find the quotes where he claimed to
                  have come from Rebazar to have been done in really poor taste... and
                  perhaps not a great move in his part ???
                  What are your on that stuff ?
                  I agree with you that plagiarism is not the real issue. I think the
                  fact that many felt The Far Country was a transcription of an actual
                  dialog means this matter of plagiarism shows them a very different
                  picture. It means the words really came from Paul's pen, with help from
                  other authors, and not word for word from Rebazar Tarzs.
                  As for poor taste, I think it looks a lot differently now. I can look
                  back at some of my early writings and see strong similarities with
                  Paul's books. He influenced me significantly. Let's say I decided to
                  leave ECKANKAR and start writing for some other teacher. Let's say I
                  took some of my old writings and just re-worked them to fit with the
                  new teachings. Now, somebody eventually sees that my writings are
                  almost word for word from some of Paul's writings. Now it looks like I
                  was "stealing" from ECKANKAR, and that the new teacher is just a
                  spin-off.
                  It's all a matter of perspective.
                  I think Paul was clearly influenced by Johnson's books. He obviously
                  liked them enough that he covered a lot of the same material, and even
                  used very similar words in many cases, when he wrote The Far Country.
                  However, he was also writing this at the same time as he handed Kirpal
                  Singh his first draft of The Tiger's Fang. If Kirpal had not rejected
                  his efforts, I believe Kirpal's students would have looked at The Far
                  Country far differently.
                  On the other hand, I don't really know what Paul was thinking when he
                  wrote this book. I do like The Far Country far more than Johnson's
                  books, so I'm glad he wrote it. However, I do think that it is a
                  serious negative to his popularity in the public sector. I'm not sure
                  Paul would mind too much about that. - Doug.

                  http://tinyurl.com/7stz3vz

                  (4) February 2004:

                  "[...] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I
                  guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use
                  other writers words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck
                  Master were saying them? Yes. [....]"

                  http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=268&page=168#m264

                  (5)

                  March 2007:

                  [...] Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's
                  book, Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual
                  account?
                  Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is
                  he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
                  I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By
                  The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works,
                  but have taken The Far Country as something different.
                  So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar
                  work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow
                  you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it
                  becomes a trust issue for them.
                  I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was
                  much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing
                  spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience.
                  These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So,
                  I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he
                  was trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.
                  In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book,
                  to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it
                  was really like. [...] Which do you think Paul was writing about? Was
                  he trying to write about historical facts, or was he describing
                  spiritual truth? If the later, wouldn't it be best to review his works
                  in this light? Why worry if his facts are not exactly right?

                  http://tinyurl.com/7tuzbwd

                  --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, Janice Pfeiffer
                  <jepfeiffer@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Prometheus,
                  > Â
                  > You have no idea how comforting your comments are to me. It
                  gives me peace of mind to know that others did have them too. Thank
                  you for being such a wise soul.
                  > Â
                  > Can you give more detail about the conditions that Doug Marman
                  admitted that rebazar was imaginary? To whom did he tell this and
                  why? The circus of eckankar is mind boggling. The more I hear
                  from experienced eckist, the harder it is to believe that it can stand
                  as an organization. It appears like a house of cards. Do you
                  think more people are becoming disenchanted with eckankar and do you
                  think the org is losing ground? I have read they exaggerate their
                  membership by counting anyone who has ever attended an eck event.Â
                  Any ideas?
                  > Â
                  > Thanks
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                  > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: The Dark Side of
                  ECKankar (Revisited)
                  > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:33 PM
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Â
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hello Janice and All,
                  > Interesting. I think I'll
                  > share some comments
                  > to your insights below.
                  >
                  > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
                  > "Prometheus,
                  >
                  > Now that is very interesting.
                  >
                  > I, myself, felt I suffered some kind of an attack about a year or
                  so before I got out. I believe it happened because I just wasn't
                  falling in line like a good little eckist but maybe I was robbed of
                  energy. My experience was that I was just before falling asleep one
                  night and I heard a loud voice which used a word I couldn't remember
                  later. I know it started with a P.
                  >
                  > Anyway, as this word was being shouted, I got a jolt of some kind
                  and then I felt a wave of nausea and weakness. This wasn't a dream but
                  I was only half awake. The voice I heard wasn't wimpy sounding klemp.
                  It was a strong male voice. A few nights later, I did dream that an
                  ugly looking little troll like figure came into my room and stood
                  gazing at me through the metal barks on the foot board of my bed. In my
                  dream I told it to get out now and never come back. It did.
                  >
                  > Then I started having dreams that portrayed the eck master rebazar
                  as being a thief and a con artist. The experience was weird and the
                  dreams were even more so. While an early eckist, I guess rebazar was my
                  favorite character. He seemed the most spiritual at the time. I found
                  it very confusing to have these dreams.
                  >
                  > I began to realize how stale my life had become. I was in a long
                  term relationship with a high initiate. I started asking the questions
                  that got me yelled at by the area resa. I had read nothing but eck
                  teachings since becoming an eckist. I thought while an ekist there was
                  true beauty in the teachings."
                  >
                  > ME (Prometheus): I know that
                  > many of us have had similar
                  > experiences of being attacked
                  > by negative entities and having
                  > to defend ourselves. In this case
                  > your RESA was, also, one of these
                  > negative beings. Too bad you
                  > couldn't protect yourself from
                  > them, but it's deceptive when
                  > one has placed trust in a RESA
                  > by assuming they are always
                  > positive and always on your side.
                  > They are as closed minded and
                  > defensive as is any religionist
                  > when protecting their dogma
                  > from too much scrutiny.
                  >
                  > "And so I began to see eckankar with all its manipulation and how
                  it attempts to break a person down. I walked away and I started reading
                  all the things I would not read as an eckist. It took me about another
                  year to start feeling like a normal person. I must say that the attack
                  seemed to be aimed at my brain and not my heart as these great ones of
                  eckankar claim in theirs writings. It didn't appear to be a positive
                  thing and I wondered if an attempt had been made to harm me since I
                  wasn't conforming properly. I didn't insult people or even respond to
                  them with rudeness but I did maintain my right to privacy on many
                  occasions when asked personal questions. Privacy doesn't seem to be
                  respected in eckankar and a lot of eckist were usually telling stories
                  about the personal lives of other eckist."
                  >
                  > ME: Yes. One has to give-in and give-up.
                  > Some say, Let-go and Let-God. But, with
                  > ECKankar they will say to remain skeptical
                  > until you can "prove it" to yourself. But,
                  > the catch is that there's a time limit for
                  > being skeptical. True, when one seeks
                  > the "Truth" via introspection and uses
                  > meditation/contemplation one will change
                  > and see with new eyes, but that's not due
                  > to any fake Mahanta or borrowed and
                  > tweaked Sant Mat dogma. One will naturally
                  > dream and imagine all sorts of things
                  > when attention is placed upon these
                  > areas and topics. That's what Twitchell
                  > and every other conman knew and uses
                  > and what Klemp continues to use as
                  > a hook. It's a slight-of-hand deception
                  > the magician uses while the viewer's
                  > attention is distracted elsewhere.
                  >
                  >
                  > "I think some higher part of me was showing me the truth behind
                  eckankar after the attack but I never associated the experience with
                  demons. I am not sure demons are real and separate entities. I have
                  always felt that a lot of Christians will declare anything evil or
                  demonic that threatens their views so if I read what they have to say,
                  I dismiss a lot of it. If evil didn't exist then Christianity wouldn't
                  have a reason to exist. This article starts out like most religious
                  hipe but they did make a few good points about the destructive nature
                  of eckankar."
                  >
                  > ME: I'm, also, not so sure that demons
                  > are real. It could very well be that demons
                  > are metaphors for those things that bother
                  > and bind us to negativity, fear, self-doubt
                  > and even to self-loathing. Actually, isn't
                  > all religious dogma full of hidden metaphors?
                  > This is where the fanatics and the fundamentalists
                  > have problems since they tend to pick and
                  > choose what is easy for them to believe
                  > since they tend to be more simple-minded
                  > and tend to see most everything in literal,
                  > narrow, terms.
                  >
                  >
                  > "I honestly believe that klemp thinks he is the living eck master
                  and he thinks he is doing a lot of good. I think he is just the puppet
                  for the more scheming higher ups. I really don't s
                  > see anything really outstanding about klemp at all. That was my
                  biggest problem with eckankar. When I would do the gazing at the
                  mahanta thing using klemps picture, all I could see was a sickly
                  looking man. He even looked miserable. I saw no power. He wasn't
                  charismatic. He wasn't very intelligent and he had no creative ability
                  that I could see. He like twitchell seemed to need to draw from sources
                  outside of eckankar for spiritual inspiration and his attempts were to
                  me at times comical. As long as he was being told he was the great eck
                  master, he probably was easily controlled by the gang of money hounds
                  making up corporate eckankar."
                  >
                  > ME: Klemp is the Higher Up.
                  > He had the by-laws changed
                  > after he took over from D.G.
                  > and neither the President nor
                  > the EK Board has any voting
                  > authority. Only Klemp can hire
                  > and fire. The local Satsang
                  > Societies and local Boards have
                  > been set up the same (As Above).
                  > Thus, the RESAs can hire and
                  > fire the local Presidents and
                  > Board members and the votes
                  > of Board members carry no
                  > authority! The RESA has the
                  > sole authority, unless, a higher
                  > authority at the ESC steps in.
                  > However, when this is done
                  > it is always with the approval
                  > of Klemp and under his direction.
                  >
                  >
                  > "It is true that eckankar gets rid of things that were written by
                  twitchell and others that the average person would think is not
                  spiritual. I never heard of twitchells written rantings about his great
                  power and influence so by the time I was in, I guess it had been
                  removed from print."
                  >
                  > ME: "Difficulties Of Becoming The Living
                  > ECK Master" was the best book written
                  > depicting Twitchell's egomaniacal rants.
                  > There were three interviews done around
                  > June 1971 while PT was the full blown
                  > self-proclaimed Mahanta. What's amazing
                  > is that after all of these years he's still
                  > lying about his past. Klemp has stated
                  > on Eckankar.org that Twit was "exaggerating"
                  > and "twisting facts" to get into Kentucky's
                  > Who's Who and had never traveled all that
                  > far from home. Yet, Twitchell (in this June,
                  > 1971 interview), is saying he was almost
                  > 16 years old when he, first, went from
                  > Paris to India, with his sister, to be with
                  > Sudar Singh. There are more examples
                  > that are even more outlandish. Paul's
                  > comments about how he confused things
                  > and screwed up paperwork so that he
                  > could take it easy during the start of
                  > WWII showed a level of subversion and
                  > sabotage that even the Nazis couldn't
                  > accomplish!
                  >
                  > "I've never talked about the experience before because I found it
                  so confusing and during that time, I wondered if I had gotten a little
                  bit nuts to even have those things. Any feed back from more
                  knowledgeable eckist would be greatly appreciated. I don't know about
                  demons but it was strange and enough to cause the process of breaking
                  the chains of eckankar for me. They need more slaves to bring in
                  recruits for more money and more influence. I wasn't doing that. I am
                  thankful that although I did perform tasks for the local area, I did
                  not drag a single soul into eckankar. Well, not that I know of anyway.
                  Guess I wasn't a very good eckiest. I wasn't capable of it and I am
                  ashamed of myself for ever being a member. Coming out of it, I think
                  most people feel dumb, gullible and used."
                  >
                  > ME: I think that we all have to get
                  > over the guilt and shame of being
                  > tricked. Look at all of those who
                  > belong to a religion and donate
                  > time and money in order to get
                  > their "feel good" fix. Religions
                  > are types of opiates... Eckankar
                  > too! People need to believe in
                  > something that can give them
                  > hope and to help them to maintain
                  > a positive outlook. And, conmen
                  > know what people want and need.
                  > Attitude is, also, important but
                  > there's a fine line between being
                  > positive and being delusional.
                  > Sometimes it's difficult to know
                  > where to draw the line and some
                  > of us have more difficulty with
                  > seeing the good versus seeing
                  > the bad. However, I don't think
                  > that seeing the glass half-empty
                  > is always wrong, but it does present
                  > more of a challenge to overcome.
                  >
                  > "Something else kind of made me realize that eckankar wasn't
                  healthy. I am by no means saying that all eckist have mental problems.
                  Some of them had a great need to talk to some one. I listened a lot.
                  Anyway, I was told by some eckist that they were diagnosed with severe
                  mental conditions previously or since becoming eckist. But why couldn't
                  this great living eck master help them over come these things or at
                  least help them adjust better to the physical world? If the living eck
                  master had to go nuts to find his spiritual power does that mean it is
                  necessary to become a spiritually enlightened being? Why does klemp
                  describe his psychotic episode as something spiritual, when no one with
                  a sound mind or high spiritual powers, would remove their clothes in
                  public? Not in my opinion anyway. Is it because after being proclaimed
                  the living eck master, it might be revealed by the media and so it was
                  woven into a spiritual experience as kind of a necessary
                  > ordeal? Did he go psychotic because he was attempting to follow in
                  twitchells shoes and he mentally duplicated twithells experience?"
                  >
                  > ME: I don't believe that Twitchell
                  > ever needed to jump off a bridge
                  > and do a strip tease at an airport
                  > and choose jail or a mental institution
                  > in order to "find God." Besides, Twit
                  > was a liar up to the moment of his
                  > untimely death and, thus, was not
                  > a "spiritual being." It was all about
                  > him. Besides, many people have
                  > done stupid things when confused
                  > with life and have sought "spiritual
                  > solutions." If one chose to, one could
                  > claim that their mental missteps
                  > and episodes were "spiritual
                  > experiences" as Klemp has done.
                  > Klemp is merely doing a 20/20
                  > hindsight, and PR rewrite, to
                  > excuse his mental confusion.
                  > After all, HK's the leader of a
                  > church and has to be above
                  > and beyond reproach. It's a
                  > pretend game where he has
                  > to, partially, buy into the hype
                  > in order to seem authentic.
                  >
                  > "I did meet some eckist that I still remember with fondness and
                  who appeared to be warm caring human beings. Some appeared to be well
                  adjusted people. Also, I just read a posting by an eckist on this
                  article that sounded remarkably insightful and loving. Maybe it is
                  possible to grow in eckankar."
                  >
                  > ME: I, too, know and remember some
                  > H.I.s whom I like. They are nice people...
                  > as long as they don't know who I am.
                  > That could/would change I'm sure.
                  > They would feel betrayed and insulted
                  > and I could understand that, however,
                  > that, too, would be a "spiritual" test!
                  > To "grow in eckankar?" Sure, but it's
                  > not due to Eckankar or because of
                  > inner guidance by a fake mahanta.
                  > That crap just gets in the way and
                  > causes more codependency. Any
                  > growth or realization leading to
                  > an expanded awareness is learned
                  > and earned by the individual. It's
                  > their own personal and private
                  > relationship to the Holy Spirit or
                  > whatever one wants to call this
                  > divine essence, or not, that leads
                  > to a divine knowingness and to
                  > contentment!
                  >
                  > "I had one eckist tell me that he didn't care where the teachings
                  came from because they worked for him. I had conversations with several
                  high initiates who were aware of the deception in eckankar and simply
                  accepted it without any attempts to rationalize it. It appeared that
                  the only truth that did exist for a lot of them was what ever seemed
                  relevant at the time. One female told me, you take the parts you can
                  use and toss the rest. I guess the idea was that with the teachings
                  being so vast, it was up to a person to decide for themselves which
                  ones to keep. Also, if twitchell made a habit of lying then truth
                  wasn't anything concrete at all but something to be manipulated as
                  needed. Well, that is what I got any from conversations. I think this
                  concept corrodes the moral fiber of a person. Lies should not be
                  knowingly condoned."
                  >
                  > ME: Actually, accepting Eckankar
                  > while knowing about the deceptions
                  > and lies is rationalizing. It's like,
                  > if it's not broke why fix it? Or,
                  > why throw the baby out with the
                  > (dirty) bath water? Nothing, and
                  > nobody (Klemp), in the lower worlds
                  > of KAL is perfect. Thus, if it (Eckankar)
                  > works why complain? H.I.s have
                  > put blinders on in order to stay
                  > the course and maintain their
                  > prestigious positions which took
                  > them decades of time and money
                  > to obtain. Many have rejected, in
                  > part, HK's RESA structure and the
                  > ESA Guidelines. Yes, I knew of H.I.s
                  > that did the same... picked and
                  > chose what they wanted to follow
                  > and believe. However, that's not
                  > the way Eckankar is supposed to
                  > work. One is supposed to take
                  > the bait and swallow it hook, line,
                  > and sinker! Twit, supposedly, took
                  > only the best from all of the other
                  > religions and experts, etc. in order
                  > to create (or bring forth) the EK
                  > dogma to the modern Western
                  > world. Thus, how can one pick
                  > and chose when it's all, supposedly,
                  > relevant? If a person is not consciously
                  > following the guidance and the will
                  > of the LEM/Mahanta (Klemp), then,
                  > they are heretics!
                  >
                  > "I just believe the good people just refused to see anything other
                  than eckankar because they needed to belong to something they view as
                  greater than anything else. They are under the eckankar spell. I still
                  wouldn't want contact with them though. I just couldn't listen that
                  eckankar dribble ever again and I would have to show how sorry I feel
                  for them. It would serve no healthy purpose for me or them. So, I just
                  remember the good and bless them in my heart."
                  >
                  > ME: True! It's nice to belong.
                  > Humans are social animals
                  > and most like to follow in
                  > one way or another because
                  > it's easier to follow than to
                  > lead. Being a follower requires
                  > less thought and energy. It's
                  > less demanding, less consuming,
                  > and is less stressful. It is true
                  > that the Higher one is with
                  > initiations, years, and titles
                  > the more lost that individual
                  > is. They've bought into it
                  > to the extreme. Look at Marge
                  > Klemp! However, the ones
                  > to really feel sorry for are those
                  > ESC staffers who know it's all
                  > a sham and Klemp is a poser,
                  > but they have to put on an act
                  > in order to keep their jobs,
                  > health care, retirement, etc.
                  >
                  >
                  > "Anyway, this article named a few people that I am not familiar
                  with. I will look them up but any info any of you can share would be
                  appreciated. Who is Dave Marman, Bill Schnoebelen and Robert Marsh? Are
                  these really old names in eckankar history? Bill Schnoebelen was an
                  eckist according to this article. The other two appear to be writers."
                  >
                  > ME: Doug Marman is an old
                  > friend of Klemp's who's an
                  > apologist for Eckankar. I think
                  > he's a 7th. He's got some books
                  > out there that have overlooked
                  > many facts and are based upon
                  > lies and hearsay. What's funny,
                  > however, is that Doug's stated
                  > that Twitchell lied about traveling
                  > to Paris, France to visit his sister
                  > when it was, actually, Paris, Kentucky.
                  > And, Marman's stated that Rebazar
                  > was probably made up by Twitchell.
                  > After all, PT needed to have
                  > someone other than Kirpal Singh,
                  > his real master, initiate him.
                  > Thus, PT created RT in order to
                  > initiate himself. Plus, Marman
                  > has admitted that Twitchell
                  > created the Mahanta title in
                  > January 1969. Yet, Marman
                  > omits all of this information
                  > in his books!
                  >
                  > "Telling my experience wasn't easy for me. Although I tend to be a
                  private person, I felt a need to write it.
                  >
                  > Thanks for giving me the opportunity Prometheus.
                  >
                  > May you all be blessed with good things especially fruitful
                  spiritual experiences."
                  >
                  > ME: Thanks for sharing this.
                  > It was interesting for me to
                  > comment.
                  >
                  >
                  > prometheus wrote:
                  >
                  > This is an entertaining approach.
                  >
                  >
                  http://www.scribd.com/doc/8967961/The-DARK-SIDE-of-ECKANKAR-by-Ruth-and-Noah-Samuelson
                  >
                  > Prometheus
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.