Excerpt from: SOUL, GOD AND RELIGION
Etznab
[....]
The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
are those who teach that this can be gained by
the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
taught that external forms were necessary for
salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
sects have their parts to play, but they are for
children, they last but temporarily. Books never
make religions, but religions make books. We
must not forget that. No book ever created God,
but God inspired all the great books. And no book
ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
The end of all religions is the realising of God in
the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
— in realising God. Ideals and methods may differ,
but that is the central point. There may be a thous-
and different radii, but they all converge to the one
centre, and that is the realisation of God: something
behind this world of sense, this world of eternal
eating and drinking and talking nonsense, this world
of false shadows and selfishness. There is that
beyond all books, beyond all creeds, beyond the
vanities of this world and it is the realisation of God
within yourself. A man may believe in all the churches
in the world, he may carry in his head all the sacred
books ever written, he may baptise himself in all the
rivers of the earth, still, if he has no perception of God,
I would class him with the rankest atheist. And a man
may have never entered a church or a mosque, nor
performed any ceremony, but if he feels God within
himself and is thereby lifted above the vanities of the
world, that man is a holy man, a saint, call him what
you will. As soon as a man stands up and says he
is right or his church is right, and all others are wrong,
he is himself all wrong. He does not know that upon
the proof of all the others depends the proof of his own.
Love and charity for the whole human race, that is the
test of true religiousness. I do not mean the sentimental
statement that all men are brothers, but that one must
feel the oneness of human life. So far as they are not
exclusive, I see that the sects and creeds are all mine;
they are all grand. They are all helping men towards the
real religion. I will add, it is good to be born in a church,
but it is bad to die there. It is good to be born a child,
but bad to remain a child. Churches, ceremonies, and
symbols are good for children, but when the child is
grown, he must burst the church or himself. We must
not remain children for ever. It is like trying to fit one
coat to all sizes and growths. I do not deprecate the
existence of sects in the world. Would to God there
were twenty millions more, for the more there are,
there will be a greater field for selection. What I do
object to is trying to fit one religion to every case.
Though all religions are essentially the same, they
must have the varieties of form produced by dissimilar
circumstances among different nations. We must each
have our own individual religion, individual so far as the
externals of it go.
[....]
- Swami Vivekananda
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm
Etznab
Copyright date: Over 100 years ago!
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm
Etznab
We ought to remember the words of Vivekananda about
churches, and religions in general. We could not say it
better, so let us quote him: "...A man may believe in all
the churches in the world; he may carry in his head all
the sacred books ever written; he may baptize himself
in all the rivers of the earth - still if he has no perception
of God, I would class him with the rankest atheist. And
a man may have never entered a church or a mosque,
nor performed any ceremony; but if he realizes God within
himself, and is thereby lifted above the vanities of the world,
that man is a holy man, a saint, call him what you will..."
- Julian Johnson, The Path of the Masters
"Now a study of the Divine SUGMAD is in order" said
Rebazar Tarzs, dropping upon the floor and putting his
legs one over the other in a lotus position [....]
"You don't find the SUGMAD through religion. IT's be-
yond religion of any nature, and nobody is going to seek
for IT correctly when they know not where IT is.
"The SUGMAD is beyond this world of senses, this
world of eternal eating and drinking and talking nonsense,
this world of false shadows and selfishness.
"IT is beyond all books, beyond all creeds, beyond the
vanities of the world. It is the realization of the SUGMAD
within oneself.
"A man may believe in all the churches in the world;
he may carry in his head all the sacred books ever written;
he may baptize himself in all the rivers of the earth, - still
if he has no perception of the SUGMAD, I would class
him with the rankest atheist. And a man may never
enter a church or a mosque, nor perform any ceremony;
but if he realizes the SUGMAD within himself, and is
thereby lifted above the vanities of the world, that man
is a holy man, a saint; call him what you will.
I will add that it is good to be bormn in a church, but
it is bad to die there. It is good to be born a child, but
bad to remain a child. Churches, ceremonies, symbols,
are good for children; but when a child is grown up, he
must burst, either the church or himself. [....]"
- Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell. The Far Country
***************************************************************
For those who have eyes to see, let them see! Let them
learn that Vivekananda's lecture took place over 100 yrs.
ago! That Julian Johnson's book came out in 1939. That
The Far Country - featuring Rebazar Tarzs - came out
over 30 years after that.
Add to that a familiarity by Paul Twitchell with writings
& teachings by Vivekananda and Julian Johnson and the
obvious conclusion is that Paul twitchell used Rebazar
tarzs as a "literary device" to convey the words and the
teachings of others.
And people don't understand why I question the written
history, along with the physical reality of Rebazar Tarzs.
These excerpts are but the tip of an iceberg. Moreover,
I seriously doubt the members posting in this group be-
sides myself are even familiar with the extent of plagiar-
ism and copying by Paul Twitchell.
I like the writings. Much of them. What I don't like are
the comments by others surprised by the things I say,
or others who ask when I am going to leave Eckankar.
Nor should I have to like that. IMHO.
If they want to know when I'm going to leave "their own
version" of Eckankar, I must remind them that my path
is not their path. And that is OK :)
BTW, the excerpts from Vivekananda's talk & quotes
from The Far Country illustrated in this link have not
been illustrated together before. Not that I am aware
of. Ford Johnson gave a snippet in his book, showing
the Quote from The Path of the Masters and The Far
Country. However, after looking at Vivekananda's
lecture and the chapter of The Far Country, there are
a lot more similarities than that illustrated by Ford J.
Etznab
Jasmyn
The Far Country is no longer published. I'll repeat that: The Far
Country is no longer published.
The majority of plagiarism was in The Far Country.
You tell us nothing new, Etznab. I have been here since nearly the
beginning of A.R.E., and probably most everyone else here has been
well aware of every nuance about plagiarism as it was explored here
since day one, you flatter yourself if you believe you have some
knowledge that others are unaware of.
You prove nothing.
Nothing you say has much meaning to those who have daily experiences
for themselves.
This path of Eckankar is not all about the writings.
It's more about each persons individual experiences, and with Masters,
going through the planes and being shown various things by these
Masters. That is an amazing thing for those of us who are so fortunate
to be able to recall these experiences.
I think you mix up two different things: Some small amount of
plagiarism (was the count less than 2%? and much of that was from The
Far Country), which you can fault Paul for certainly if you like (I
could care less)....with the fact that the truth of the ECK Masters is
the foundation of Eckankar, and that is proven by the very real
experiences that so many of us are having and are aware of. That
can't be changed because someone like you has doubts and throws words
like 'myth', 'literary device' and 'pseudo religion' around, and
certainly the LEM will not change the teachings the way you would
like--because they then would not reflect the truth of our
experiences.
Jasmyn
Rich?
> On Sep 20, 7:00 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> [....]
>>
>> The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
>> religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
>> It is not what you read,
> And people don't understand why I question the written
> history, along with the physical reality of Rebazar Tarzs.
Your are fooling yourself if you beleive that. Eveyone reading here
understands from your years of repetition that you are possessed by this
fanatical quest in your own mind to inform the world of your disbeliefs.
> These excerpts are but the tip of an iceberg.
OMG! You just plagiarized David Lane! He wrote those exact words in this
newsgroup. We can't believe anything you write anymore because of that. ;-}
That claim by David is what started my plagiarism challenge to him. It ended
with less that one percent ever being documented. If that analogy was
accurate, it would mean that 90% of what Paul wrote was plagiarized. Pay
close attention now. It's simple math. 1% is *extremely* far from being
equal to 90%
> Moreover,
> I seriously doubt the members posting in this group be-
> sides myself are even familiar with the extent of plagiar-
> ism and copying by Paul Twitchell.
Are you really serious, or just delirious? All the plagiarisms found were
posted in this newsgroup. Everyone reading this(speak up if I'm wrong) knows
that a tiny percentage of what Paul wrote was written by others first. Don't
believe it. Add them up yourself. Do the math yourself. Get back to us then
if you're not too embarrassed and would eat crow.
> I like the writings. Much of them. What I don't like are
> the comments by others surprised by the things I say,
> or others who ask when I am going to leave Eckankar.
> Nor should I have to like that. IMHO.
No one is suprised anymore. If you don't like people calling it as they
repeatedly see your assertions and actions, change your behavior.
> If they want to know when I'm going to leave "their own
> version" of Eckankar, I must remind them that my path
> is not their path. And that is OK :)
Yep, it's your karma. Let's hope _you_ find it OK.
> BTW, the excerpts from Vivekananda's talk & quotes
> from The Far Country illustrated in this link have not
> been illustrated together before. Not that I am aware
> of.
Exactly! That one, among the many other things that you are not aware of.
Rich?
Which so far has only amounted to about 50 paragraphs out of about 1500...
> You tell us nothing new, Etznab.
It is baffling that he doesn't recognize that. I'm no psychiatrist, so I
won't guess at what his problem is, but it seems to be getting worse.
> I have been here since nearly the
> beginning of A.R.E., and probably most everyone else here has been
> well aware of every nuance about plagiarism as it was explored here
> since day one, you flatter yourself if you believe you have some
> knowledge that others are unaware of.
Maybe that's it? He imagines he is being of service, and that is what
motivates him?
> You prove nothing.
>
> Nothing you say has much meaning to those who have daily experiences
> for themselves.
>
> This path of Eckankar is not all about the writings.
Apparently it is for him. That's _his_ path. He 'got it on the inner'. It's
certainly not ours nor the direction Eckankar points to.
> It's more about each persons individual experiences, and with Masters,
> going through the planes and being shown various things by these
> Masters. That is an amazing thing for those of us who are so fortunate
> to be able to recall these experiences.
>
> I think you mix up two different things: Some small amount of
> plagiarism (was the count less than 2%? and much of that was from The
> Far Country),
It was, until the number of paragraphs David Lane claimed in the Far Country
where no longer taken for granted. That 400+ count was downgraded to the
actual documentation of paragraphs that were posted here. So it dropped to
.7% .007 of what Paul wrote. I'm sure there are more. Maybe even enough to
top 1%. I think that the detractors that were all juiced believing David
Lane about proving what they imagined was a huge amount of plagiarism became
discouraged and gave up when they saw how wrong they were. Nobody else seems
to care anymore either, since no one has picked up the ball they dropped at
.7%. Consciously or unconsciously they recognize that it's a huge project
they will never bring the results they want.
> which you can fault Paul for certainly if you like (I
> could care less)....with the fact that the truth of the ECK Masters is
> the foundation of Eckankar, and that is proven by the very real
> experiences that so many of us are having and are aware of. That
> can't be changed because someone like you has doubts and throws words
> like 'myth', 'literary device' and 'pseudo religion' around, and
> certainly the LEM will not change the teachings the way you would
> like--because they then would not reflect the truth of our
> experiences.
Since David lane there have been several that have strutted through this NG
believing that they would be able to change Eckankar to suit their beliefs
of how it should be run, or even destroyed. They never seem to have
recognized that they are pissing in the Ocean of Love and Mercy.
Rich~~~~~~~~Sailing the Cosmic Sea~~~~~
Jasmyn
Yes I remember a couple of them coming through here, demanding
changes, after a while they left Eckankar.
Ford and Graham tried that too, thinking they know better than the
LEM. It never works.
Jasmyn
Etznab
> [....]
>
> The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
Etznab
>
> The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_1/Lectures_And_Discourses/Soul,_God_And_Religion
Best link (The book was copyrighted).
http://books.google.com/books?id=030TAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=%22Swami+Vivekananda%22+%22rankest+atheist%22&source=bl&ots=DhnRYvEeiA&sig=ivA1NZJa8Epl2jS8XKDyHF6KbrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IOAKUJ-GBIau2AWlx7X5Dw&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Swami%20Vivekananda%22%20%22rankest%20atheist%22&f=false
That quote (compared with R.T. in The Far Country) was what set me on a path toward searching the truth about Rebazar Tarzs and the written history about him.
For instance:
"Perhaps Twitchell's most revealing plagiarism, and one that cuts at the very root of Eckankar's claim for legitimacy, occurs on pages 110 and 111 of his book The Far Country. For not only does Twitchell appropriate the words of Julian Johnson, as found on pages 32 and 33 of The Path of the Masters, but he also plagiarizes Johnson's quotation of Swami Vivekananda (given on the same pages) - forgetting in the process that two different people are speaking. The following is a comparison of Johnson's 1939 writing and Twitchell's 1966 writing: [... .]"
http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm6.html
Etznab
> On Monday, September 20, 2010 7:00:56 PM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> >
> > The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> > religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> > It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> > believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> > &quot;Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
> > God,&quot; yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
> > are those who teach that this can be gained by
> > the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
> > taught that external forms were necessary for
> > salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
> > selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
> > sects have their parts to play, but they are for
> > children, they last but temporarily. Books never
> > make religions, but religions make books. We
> > must not forget that. No book ever created God,
> > but God inspired all the great books. And no book
> > ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
> > The end of all religions is the realising of God in
> > the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
> > is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
> > — in realising God. Ideals and methods may differ,
> > but that is the central point. There may be a thous-
> > and different radii, but they all converge to the one
> > centre, and that is the realisation of God: something
> > behind this world of sense, this world of eternal
> > eating and drinking and talking nonsense, this world
> > of false shadows and selfishness. There is that
> > beyond all books, beyond all creeds, beyond the
> > vanities of this world and it is the realisation of God
> > within yourself. A man may believe in all the churches
> > in the world, he may carry in his head all the sacred
> > books ever written, he may baptise himself in all the
> > rivers of the earth, still, if he has no perception of God,
> > I would class him with the rankest atheist. And a man
> > may have never entered a church or a mosque, nor
> > performed any ceremony, but if he feels God within
> > himself and is thereby lifted above the vanities of the
> > world, that man is a holy man, a saint, call him what
> > you will. As soon as a man stands up and says he
> > is right or his church is right, and all others are wrong,
> > he is himself all wrong. He does not know that upon
> > the proof of all the others depends the proof of his own.
> > Love and charity for the whole human race, that is the
> > test of true religiousness. I do not mean the sentimental
> > statement that all men are brothers, but that one must
> > feel the oneness of human life. So far as they are not
> > exclusive, I see that the sects and creeds are all mine;
> > they are all grand. They are all helping men towards the
> > real religion. I will add, it is good to be born in a church,
> > but it is bad to die there. It is good to be born a child,
> > but bad to remain a child. Churches, ceremonies, and
> > symbols are good for children, but when the child is
> > grown, he must burst the church or himself. We must
> > not remain children for ever. It is like trying to fit one
> > coat to all sizes and growths. I do not deprecate the
> > existence of sects in the world. Would to God there
> > were twenty millions more, for the more there are,
> > there will be a greater field for selection. What I do
> > object to is trying to fit one religion to every case.
> > Though all religions are essentially the same, they
> > must have the varieties of form produced by dissimilar
> > circumstances among different nations. We must each
> > have our own individual religion, individual so far as the
> > externals of it go.
> >
> > [....]
> >
> > - Swami Vivekananda
> >
> > http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm
> Better link.
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_1/Lectures_And_Discourses/Soul,_God_And_Religion
>
> Best link (The book was copyrighted).
>
> That quote (compared with R.T. in The Far Country) was what set me on a path toward searching the truth about Rebazar Tarzs and the written history about him.
>
> For instance:
>
>
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm6.html
The quote comparisons were referenced in yet another way. I read this next excerpt nearly eight years ago.
An excerpt from Ford Johnson's book: Confessions of a God Seeker (2003).
"[...] This is a remarkable example of plagiarism — though a careless one, for several reasons. First, note that Julian Johnson is quoting (appropriately) the words of Vivekananda. Yet Paul, recreating the scene as another drop-in by Rebazar Tarzs, pretends that Tarzs is uttering Vivekananda's words. This is a common device used by Paul to take the words of others and attribute them to one or more of his created line of Eck Masters. This clever example of plagiarism is particularly revealing because, on the very next page of Johnson's book, Johnson continues with words of his own composition, having ended his quote from Vivekananda. Yet, Paul continues to attribute the words to Rebazar Tarzs, as if he is giving an uninterrupted discourse. Paul has thus combined the words and ideas of two people and placed them in the mouth of his presumed master without regard for who is uttering them. [... .]"
http://www.archive.org/stream/ConfessionsOfAGodSeeker/Confessions_of_a_God_Seeker_djvu.txt
Whether Vivekananda's lecture, his book, or Julian Johnson's book, the source does appear to be copyrighted; Paul's quotes look most similar to those of Julian Johnson (IMO) in The Path of the Masters (1939). That is not all, however, because I've witnessed sections from other books and authors strikingly similar to Paul Twitchell's Rebazar Tarzs, too.
***
So this was the thing I kept returning to. Evidence suggesting Paul Twitchell used the writings of other people to animate ("or breathe life into") the character of Rebazar Tarzs. This was not the idea of a 500+ year-old Eckankar Master that I had in mind.
There is evidence to show that Swami Vivekananda was a living person. That Julian Johnson was a living person. What is the evidence to show that Rebazar Tarzs was / is a living person?
Written words and drawings? People's beliefs?
So that was something I kept asking myself. And I asked myself whether - if a fictional character - Rebazar Tarzs could be a living person. Such as a Living Eck Master, with a physical body to match, or if this was just Paul Twitchell all along?
I had to wonder. Does the criteria of written words and drawings, along with people's beliefs, make the real masters? I see written words, along with pictures and what people believe every day. They don't always add up to what is real, vs. imaginary.
So, at this point (for me) the question remains. Is Rebazar Tarzs real, or imaginary?
I also have considered whether Paul Twitchell's two successors, Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp actually read the quote comparisons between R.T. and other authors BEFORE they signed on as leaders of Eckankar? If they did not then that might explain what each have had to say about this matter.
Etznab
Etznab
This is a classic thread from the olden days. Notice the reactions I got back then, and what I was told about the extent of plagiarisms, etc.
IMO, nobody who really researched the subject, who really read the books and compared them with the writings of others could overlook the idea of Eck Masters as possible literary devices.
Every example of plagiarism ever mentioned, or written about, I decided to have a record of myself. Also, all known correspondences between writings of Paul Twitchell and others, including the use of paraphrase.
I'll say it again ... that I seriously doubt many people have actually read all of the examples ... which is different from looking at a list of page numbers, or the writings of others on the subject. To really do the research oneself, it takes a lot of time and effort.
I remember when I asked someone here whether they read The Path Of The Masters and the answer was negative. And yet the same person wanted to sell me some 2% plagiarism milk.
My main point has not been about plagiarism, paraphrase, or borrowing, etc. Not about whether the writings inspired, or were any good; regardless where they came from. My main point was about whether certain Eck Masters were real living people matching the descriptions illustrated by P.T. and Eckankar. My interest has been about any aspect of Eckankar history that appeared contrary to known historical facts - simply for the reason that I wanted an explanation. Wanted to know why it happened, or why it continued to be sold like a placebo prescription. My curiosity originated from an angle of interest concerning organized religion, its growth & development. This is something I've been interested in for many years. Even from before the time I joined Eckankar as a member.
I really don't think everybody realizes the scope of problems that stem from pseudo history, especially the pseudo (man-made) history of religion and how many generations those very problems affect; how many people have suffered and died as a result. IMHO this kind of thing needs to be nipped in the bud, not let to grow to the extent it overwhelms whole societies, nations, or the world.
Some day it will be possible for almost everyone to view the extent of plagiarisms and paraphrase by Paul Twitchell, in context to what the Eck Masters reportedly said. Someday people will see the real percentage and not what little bit of dribble has leaked out so far. I think that when people read the words of many authors and see how they were appropriated for Eckankar, changed by Eckankar, and assigned names unique to Eckankar there will be a new understanding of the title: Living Eck Master.
This is something I feel needs to be addressed. What gives a Living Eck Master, or their successors, liberty to rewrite history at will? To take the writings of others, change them, reassign them to other "persons" along with liberty to create pseudo histories for those other persons?
Is this what a lineage of real living spiritual masters amounts to? I kinda had something else in mind. Something more "real".
Santim Vah
" All the plagiarisms found were posted in this newsgroup. "
RE by Jasmyn:
" The majority of plagiarism was in The Far Country. "
That TFC was the only real biggy is a major false myth -- just a common belief because TFC was simply *up there* as a book focused on by David Lane originally in the 70's, and also because it was mostly plagiarised from POTM book, a book that DL and others were familiar with already.
So few people had first hand reading *recall* of the many other books drawn on by Paul. Today there's that olden days way, plus search engines and key word searches inside digitalised books.
Another example of how social beliefs tend to lag behind advances in science and technology. :-)
RE by Jasmyn:
" You tell us nothing new, .. "
iow - Work harder, because your not good enough! <G>
A couple years ago David began another foray into detailing more of the plagiarisms in TFC, but I think he only managed to wade thru chapter one.
He put it up as one of his *ezines* if I recall. I wasn't sure why it was he was bothering, but he said he was interested in understanding about WHY it was that paul used XYZ sections, but not others .. to him there was no rhyme nor reason to it, or if there was he would need to lay out more examples to see a pattern there, or some clues.
I passed it onto to Doug fwiw. He came back with an excellent mathematics etc saying there was still only 16.8% of the TFC text of chapter One plagiarised from The Path of the Masters book. Now that's still every 6th word ok .... on average ok.
But not necessarily so I thought to myself. That's assuming that David actually found every single case of using PotM texts, and knowing David lane, he surely hadn't. hehehe
But, but .. what about the stuff taken from all the other books that David wasn't even looking for? That's not in Doug's 16.8% .. and would flush the 0.7% and the 2% theories down the S bend once and for all. :-)
IN some books however the entire chapter of books is sourced from one or two other books, and the text by Paul amounts to only eck terms, peoples/masters names, slight differences in wording/grammar, and little unrelated intros and closing comments.
That's the way it is ......
---
as to the questions it raises, about what's real or not.
fwiw, it's kind of the wrong question, or such questions are tertiary questions that need other secondary questions answered based upon more primary historical facts, or original evidence perhaps.
I guess one could say a way to put it is that, imho .. how the various inner/outer masters were portrayed by Paul, the dictations he is said to have received and then recorded in writing, paul's own life history and the history of his *teachings* and ideas plus his written explanations of all things *eck masters* cannot be taken from his own writings, or those of others based upon them, as reliable or accurate or historically true. Except *poetically*, maybe.
Based on this kind of evidence or rough conclusion, one cant really say this says anything on the question of are there eck masters/masters, only that the descriptions given about them in the WRITINGS by Paul are more likely not very accurate, and probably didn't occur at all especially not as described. Much like Paul's time in Paris and India with Sudar Singh, didn't occur either.
I the think the next likely question would be a simpler one first, such as if they are real, especially SS & RT, why was Paul writing about things and the *history* like he did vs how it actually happened? But I don't like *why* questions.
I can no reason why Paul couldn't have changed his KS text to something like:
" an Indian guru whom I followed a few years used to appear in my apartment and dictate things to me. I learnt some really good things [techniques/spiritual exercises/knowledge] through this Sant Mat - Radhasoami related teacher." - or a number of other ways where he didn't have to mention his name specifically
Paul chose to change Kirpal's name to Rebazar Tarzs instead. Smart move! No excuses. No explanations. This is a clever idea. That = Nonsense.
Aha, it's a test! Like life isn't already hard enough, we have to make up extra unnecessary tests as well? Calling Kirpal Kirpal, and RT RT, and Sawan Sawan, and Talbot Mundy Talbot, isn't good enough? :-)
Oh well, so that's a little rave. I'm reminded again of the possible idea that there's 3 levels to this history thingy ... with the first being the physical level of evidence, events, and facts which can say what happened & when, but only occasionally why. Some things can be self-explanatory, while others are not.
So the writings don't mater they say. Take away the writings and there is no Org, there is no teaching to teach. The mystic world is writings, the semniar talks are writings, the Arahata lesson plan is writings, the discources are writings, the SKS is writings, the local newsletter is writings, the HI news and books are also writings ... the *campus* for eck leaders runs courses using writings ... and yet it's all on the inner that counts. OK. OK. The writings don't matter, it's the inner connection with the L&S that counts. OK OK
Then why did Paul spend so much of his time from 1963 always writing 7 days a week? Why did Harold spend his first 10 years as Master writing & speaking about what he'd written? HK said he worked until his car accident in 1992.
Why publish almost 80 books, if writing doesn't matter, if it all happens on the inner? If the inner master, the eck etc can appear in any form, then why does it matter what the description is like for RT or SS or anyone? They'll turn up looking like anything anyway to the individual, so why the drawings of masters on the walls. If it all happens on the inner?
Would you still love me in the morning if I see Yaubl Sacabi tonight with blonde locks to his hips? What differecne could it make, if he wore white, or a green track suit with joggers?
I mean, if it is the CONTENT and the CONTACT that counts which is why plagiarising others works isn;t supposed to matter somehow, that who it is who said something *wise* , then why oh why does it matter to Paulk so much that all these thigns are being said as if by Eck masters, and not whose book he had copied info from?
If it's only the real deal inner stuff that counts; then it would make NO DIFFERENCE if Paul had quoted those passages so the reader could get the outer CONTENT .. then practice the spiritual exercises and then have their INNER CONTACT ...... how does NOT referencing Kirpal Singh, or Julian johnson or Tabot Mundy or Paul Brunton, or Curtiss or Besant or Soamiji make the CONTENT of the writings - the IDEAS and concepts in the Writings - BETTER THAN ???
Exactly how does telling the Sudar Singh story, and then WRITING about it, this lively teen in Paris and India for a couple of years make things BETTER THAN for Paul and Eckankar and students/seekers etc, than they otherwise could have been?
A: The writings don't matter, they don't count! It's what one finds thru the inner resources that counts.
That's the mantra, and I think it's true .. the writings do not matter... the writings do not matter... the writings do not matter. They do not count. :-)
See?
cheers sean
Etznab
> On Sep 20, 8:56 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 7:00 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > [....]
> >
> > > The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> > > religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> > > It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> > > believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> > > "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
> > > God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
> > > are those who teach that this can be gained by
> > > the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
> > > taught that external forms were necessary for
> > > salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
> > > selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
> > > sects have their parts to play, but they are for
> > > children, they last but temporarily. Books never
> > > make religions, but religions make books. We
> > > must not forget that. No book ever created God,
> > > but God inspired all the great books. And no book
> > > ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
> > > The end of all religions is the realising of God in
> > > the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
> > > is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
If people were aware of plagiarism in The Key to Eckankar book - and the full extent - then maybe someone could provide a link to show that they were aware.
David Lane, Ford Johnson and others quoted some plagiarisms and automatically so many people think they know the whole story. I think they did not know the whole story and thus are not prepared to make educated comments when ignorant about the whole truth.
Etznab
> > On Sep 20, 7:00 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > [....]
> >
> > > The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> > > religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> > > It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> > > believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> > > "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
> > > God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
> > > are those who teach that this can be gained by
> > > the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
> > > taught that external forms were necessary for
> > > salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
> > > selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
> > > sects have their parts to play, but they are for
> > > children, they last but temporarily. Books never
> > > make religions, but religions make books. We
> > > must not forget that. No book ever created God,
> > > but God inspired all the great books. And no book
> > > ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
> > > The end of all religions is the realising of God in
> > > the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
> > > is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
beginning of A.R.E., and probably most everyone else here has been well aware of every nuance about plagiarism as it was explored here since day one, you flatter yourself if you believe you have some knowledge that others are unaware of. [... .]"
How many of you actually took out the books and looked for the plagiarisms and found some that were not already mentioned? Show me the links where this was the case. I'd like to see that.
Etznab
> > On Sep 20, 7:00 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > [....]
> >
> > > The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> > > religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> > > It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> > > believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> > > "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
> > > God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
> > > are those who teach that this can be gained by
> > > the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
> > > taught that external forms were necessary for
> > > salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
> > > selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
> > > sects have their parts to play, but they are for
> > > children, they last but temporarily. Books never
> > > make religions, but religions make books. We
> > > must not forget that. No book ever created God,
> > > but God inspired all the great books. And no book
> > > ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
> > > The end of all religions is the realising of God in
> > > the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
> > > is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
Etznab had many experiences with Eckankar masters, finding words they said were words of other people instead!
Henosis Sage
> On Sep 20, 8:56 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 7:00 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > [....]
> >
> > > The next idea that I want to bring to you is that
> > > religion does not consist in doctrines or dogmas.
> > > It is not what you read, nor what dogmas you
> > > believe that is of importance, but what you realise.
> > > "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
> > > God," yea, in this life. And that is salvation. There
> > > are those who teach that this can be gained by
> > > the mumbling of words. But no great Master ever
> > > taught that external forms were necessary for
> > > salvation. The power of attaining it is within our-
> > > selves. We live and move in God. Creeds and
> > > sects have their parts to play, but they are for
> > > children, they last but temporarily. Books never
> > > make religions, but religions make books. We
> > > must not forget that. No book ever created God,
> > > but God inspired all the great books. And no book
> > > ever created a soul. We must never forget that.
> > > The end of all religions is the realising of God in
> > > the soul. That is the one universal religion. If there
> > > is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here
Quoting Marman in 2001 :
"And, as I mentioned before, Harold also spoke with me about his discoveries
with Paul's early life while he was uncovering them, and the MANY BOOKS Paul
had used as SOURCES for HIS OWN WRITINGS."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/jrSIuFCZ5tQ/36UNHShg_t8J
If, as Jasmyn and others believe, TFC was the only big deal, then why did
Harold and Marman see it completely differently and spend 30 years spinning
their "stories" and "motivations" and "intentions"?
> You tell us nothing new, Etznab. I have been here since nearly the
> beginning of A.R.E., and probably most everyone else here has been
> well aware of every nuance about plagiarism as it was explored here
> since day one, you flatter yourself if you believe you have some
> knowledge that others are unaware of.
>
> You prove nothing.
>
Language and thinking patterns are set early on in life.
> Nothing you say has much meaning to those who have daily experiences
> for themselves.
>
> This path of Eckankar is not all about the writings.
>
> It's more about each persons individual experiences, and with Masters,
> going through the planes and being shown various things by these
> Masters. That is an amazing thing for those of us who are so fortunate
> to be able to recall these experiences.
>
beliefs .... like TFC is the ONLY book that was heavily plagiarized?
Those experiences seem unable to expand people's awareness or knowledge
about their own "path".
> I think you mix up two different things: Some small amount of
> plagiarism (was the count less than 2%? and much of that was from The
> Far Country), which you can fault Paul for certainly if you like (I
> could care less)....with the fact that the truth of the ECK Masters is
> the foundation of Eckankar, and that is proven by the very real
> experiences that so many of us are having and are aware of.
"... the fact that the truth of the ECK Masters is the foundation of Eckankar,"
and the PROOF follows?
"...that is proven by the very real experiences that so many of us
That
> can't be changed because someone like you has doubts and throws words
> like 'myth', 'literary device' and 'pseudo religion' around, and
> certainly the LEM will not change the teachings the way you would
> like--because they then would not reflect the truth of our
> experiences.
>
> Jasmyn
"...the LEM will not change the teachings the way you would like-
-because they then would NOT reflect the truth of OUR experiences."
Jasmyn had a chicken or egg moment. ;-)
It's odd isn't it, that no one was reporting "alien abductions" until after
HP Lovecraft and those many Pulp Fiction authors (like Twitchell and Hubbard)
who were inspired by his genre?
a cpl quotes by HP Lovecraft:
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear. And the oldest and
strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all its contents."
Forbidden knowledge theme:
"Forbidden, dark, esoterically veiled knowledge is a central theme in many
of Lovecraft's works. Many of his characters are driven by curiosity or
scientific endeavor, and in many of his stories the knowledge they uncover
proves Promethean in nature, either filling the seeker with regret for what
they have learned, destroying them psychically, or completely destroying
the person who holds the knowledge."
That's quite Twitchellian imho.
"In 1919, after suffering from hysteria and depression for a long period
of time, Lovecraft's mother was committed to the mental institution--Butler
Hospital--where her husband had died."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft
Figures! No wonder Lovecraft was Lovecraft.
There's also an uncanny similarity in "the look" of Lovecraft's and Kinpa's
portrait photos. As well as those of Aleister Crowley!
Aah but I digress. Back to "Jasmyn's" assertions of "the foundation of
Eckankar".
The foundation of Eckankar is Paul Twitchell's writings. Without those
writings there is NO Eckankar anywhere. There are NO Eck masters anywhere.
The beliefs of Eckists, the experiences of Eckists would not exist without
the foundation provided by Twitchell's writings.
Or the booster rocket placed under them by Steiger willing to say anything
asked of him for a $ or the potential for a best seller to enhance his own
reputation as an author.
And Doug Marman would have been left to go searching and searching in
libraries until he found a copy of Edourd Schure's book The Great Initiates
and then given him the CREDIT he deserves for his original work inspired by
Theosophy and more.
*twinkle*
Henosis Sage
Except for Harold Klemp in 1983/84.
Rich, Jasmyn and Marman never did that's for sure.
*twinkle*
Kinpa
Etznab's experience, stated above, is simply an experience of finding out about plagiarisms, nothing more. Who did this? I think everyone knows quite well who did that. Using this as a so called "proof" that no such entities actually exist (a thing he has done several times) is nothing more than a personal assumption. It is by no means a form of direct evidence of anything other than Sri Paul Twitchell plagiarizing. Not a hard idea to understand. Why would any actual spiritual Master do this if they were in fact a true spiritual Master?
Why not? Perhaps because actual Spirituality and Spiritual law does NOT reflect nor owe its existence to anything derived within the physical universe? Of course we all know full well that this idea will be laughed at by those who have never been capable of having any degree of conscious inner experience, but that can never prove false anyone's experience. That is mere opinion. Why would Sri Rebazar Tarzs, IF he is a real individual, NOT scold Sri Paul Twitchell for doing this AND attributing words to him and other of the Vairagi Masters?
A fair question, however, the primary factor deals in the actual inner realities that exist. Can physical law have ANY sort of power or affect on beings that live in the non-dual planes? How could they? Not even possible, which is why those who most often speak on that subject here, always go into one very limited corner, that where the experiences of others are simply mental conditions whereby people can be marginalized. At the very least this is something that only an extremely limited state of consciousness would bother engaging in.
They simply cannot attain these states of being for themselves and their own direct experience, so therefore they choose to instead follow a much more limited way, that appears (to them) to be credible. In the end EVERY individual has the innate ability to choose for themselves how they will perceive these things.
If the words reported in Sri Paul Twitchell's books, reported to have been spoken by Sri Rebazar Tarzs, and yet found to have been plagiarized can be said to prove that this ECK Master, and by the same logic others who have been reported to have spoken plagiarized words does indeed prove that they were fictional, those that claim this by their own dictates have no choice but to follow that law to its end. No persons or entities, whether spiritual or physical, actually existed at all, unless some piece of original writing can be dated, and shown to have mentioned said entities. They don't get to use the concept ONLY when it is convenient for them, they MUST apply it evenly and without regard all the way across the board. To refuse to do this is no different than admitting that they that promote this view either lied, or made an error.
Extremely simple really...
Henosis Sage
For those not aware of the truth or the facts or the proof of plagiarism
across all Twitchell's books and writings - and then Klemp lying about it
for decades.
Refs:
1985 The Key to Eckankar (TKTE) 1968 Booklet - Plagiarism Research Doc (Part 3)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPOXRQb0tTeXBzOEk/view?usp=sharing
[PTHA 2012] 1968 The KEY to ECKANKAR Highlighted Plagiarisms
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTDduWlQzdXpGQ2M/view?usp=sharing
see others in the Plagiarism Evidence folder
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-M0yAR0UPhPdzZTdGxkNjBTR1U&usp=sharing
PAUL TWITCHELL ECKANKAR HISTORY ARCHIVE
- The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth -
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-M0yAR0UPhPalFWRzl6YmlmM00
But don't miss the very latest KNOWLEDGE from Etznab on a.r.e. not as yet
archived in the TEHA (and may never be)
Results: about 326 for 41391720 - Etznab's Plagiarism Search Code
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/41391720%7Csort:relevance
Hey Etznab, you've been slack adding this to your more recent posts eg below :-)
alt.religion.eckankar ›
"the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth"
Etznab 19/09/2015
Begin quote ...
THE TRUTH ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/56U-w_TghZU/3EBuPOUSBAAJ
alt.religion.eckankar ›
"... then chaos will reign in our lives."
Etznab 12 Jan 2016
Everybody knows about the plagiarism and they do not care.
In so many words, this was suggested at a.r.e. I wonder if
that includes plagiarisms that people don't, or didn't
know about?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/_8VhHmZF4ng/JHAubYVbBgAJ
Cheers
Henosis Sage
An Extremely SIMPLE Opinion really... and illogical with zero proof or evidence.
The musings of an internet fool playing make believe.
Apparently Marman was much better at recording "dialogues with Rebazar Tarzs"
than Twitchell was. If one is to believe Marman's claims that is.
Not sure why anyone would do that, but whatever.
People believe all kinds of *shit* they imagine is true when it isn't.
Kinpoo is right up there with the best in that ... as shit permeates his entire life.
(shrug)
Kinpa
Henosis Sage
A quick note of thanks for reminding all how bat shit crazy you really are Kinpoop.
No wonder you keep yelling about other people's so-called DOUBLE STANDARDS.
But hey, don't let me stop you. Go hard poop boy!
The gift that keeps on giving!
*twinkle*
Kinpa
Henosis Sage
Do drop me a note when next you are actually in the real world Kinpoop.
There's a first time for everything.