Conversation with Roy Eugene Davis, September 14, 2007.
Doug
I had a chance to speak with Roy Eugene Davis today. Roy is spiritual
director of the Center for Spiritual Awareness, and a disciple of
Paramahansa Yogananda. I wanted to talk with him concerning his quote
about Paul Twitchell that was included in Ford Johnson's book,
Confessions of a God Seeker.
I told Roy that I had recently published a new book about Paul, and in
the process I found a number of things that were at odds with what he
had recounted. I wanted to talk with him about the discrepancies.
First, I asked Roy when he met Paul Twitchell.
Roy said, "Paul came to one of my lectures. I was living in DC in the
early 1960's. He hadn't started Eckankar yet. He had studied with
Kirpal Singh. He did some publicity work for Scientology. He wasn't a
Scientology member, he just did some work for them. I think he helped
some followers of Meher Baba publish a book at the time. He seemed to
be doing work for a number of groups."
"How many times did you meet?" I asked.
"We may have met a half dozen times," said Roy. "We just talked
causally. I was a minister of Self-Realization Fellowship for two
years, and Paul had studied with Swami Premananda, which was the same
line of meditation."
I said to Roy that this raised an issue. In his quote from Ford's
book, Roy said: "I met Paul Twitchell during the early 1960's in
Washington, D.C. At that time Paul lived in an apartment owned by, and
on the grounds of the Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism"
"Yes," that's true, Roy said.
"Roy, what I found from my research, is that Paul never lived in DC
during the early 1960's," I said.
"Yes he did," Roy said. "I met him there and remember it clearly."
"Well, here is what I found: I have seen a number of letters that show
he moved out from DC in early 1959. By early 1959 he was living in
Europe. He came back to the states when his sister was on her deathbed
in late 1959. From there he went to Davenport, Iowa, and then on to
Seattle. He was living in Seattle by 1961."
"Let's see," Roy said. "I moved to DC in 1958. So, Paul might have
left DC before 1960. That's possible. I might have met him before he
left in 1959. It would have been around that time, 1958 or 1959."
That would fit with the facts I had uncovered. It is easy enough for
anyone to be off by a few years, and since Roy moved to DC in 1958, it
sounds as if he must have met Paul in 1958 or early 1959.
One of the interesting things about this is what Roy said next in his
quote: "Unmarried at that time, Paul lived alone. . . . He told me
that he had been initiated by Kirpal Singh but was no longer
affiliated with him."
This is at odds with David Lane's claims that Paul studied under
Kirpal Singh for eight years (from 1955 to 1963). If Roy's memory is
correct, then Paul had already ended his study with Kirpal in 1958 or
early 1959. This agrees with what I've seen in my research. Paul
referred to his time studying with Kirpal as a one to two year period.
Also, by 1959 Paul had written in his book, The Flute of God, that he
had parted ways with Kirpal Singh. Roy's memory, therefore, seems to
further verify that Paul's studies with Kirpal lasted two to three
years at most.
It is also interesting to note that Roy felt Paul was never a member
of Scientology, but simply did PR work for them. Roy was quite clear
about this. This is also consistent with the information I turned up.
Paul did write some articles for Ron Hubbard that Scientology printed
in 1957 and 1958, and seems to have started his association with Ron
Hubbard in the early 1950's, but Paul was doing PR and writing for a
number of companies around this time.
One thing that seemed odd to me, however, was that in the next quote
from Ford's book, Roy claimed that when he met Paul he was living in
an apartment owned by, and on the grounds of the Self-Revelation
Church of Absolute Monism, which was founded by Swami Premananda.
"What I found was that Paul lived on Self-Revelation Church grounds
from 1950 to 1955," I said to Roy. "Both David Lane and I have found
facts to verify this. He was living there with his wife at the time,
but he was kicked out in 1955 after he got into a fight with another
disciple of Premananda's. I describe this in my book. Paul claimed
that the other fellow started it, but he punched Paul through a screen
door and damaged Paul's eye. Paul was kicked out at the time, but his
wife stayed behind. This was when Paul and his first wife separated.
"So, this agrees with your statement that Paul was living alone in the
late 1950's, but doesn't it seem strange that he would get kicked out
of the ashram at the time, yet he would come back to live there a few
years later?"
"He was living in an apartment on the property at the time," said Roy.
"I remember where we met. I even remember the cross roads where he
lived. But this wasn't an ashram. These were just apartments that
belonged to the Church that they often rented out to like-minded
people. You didn't have to be a member of the group to rent the
apartment. However, I do remember visiting him there, and he wasn't
married at the time."
That seemed to clear up the confusion. This wasn't Premananda's
ashram, but some apartments that they rented out. This suggests that
Paul remained on friendly terms with the Church, even though he was no
longer studying with them. It also seems that these years when Paul
studied with Kirpal Singh and wrote for Ron Hubbard, he was still
living on the grounds of the Self-Revelation Church. This paints an
interesting picture of Paul's independence from all of these groups,
along with his willingness to work with all of them.
I had another question about Roy's quote from Ford's book, when he
said: "At a later meeting he [Paul] said, 'To be successful in a big
way, you have to have your own movement. Paramahansa Yogananda had his
Self-Realization Fellowship; L. Ron Hubbard has his Scientology;
Eckankar is my thing.'"
"When you said 'at a later meeting,'" I asked Roy, "were you still
talking about your meetings with Paul in DC? That's what it sounded
like from the quote."
"No," Roy answered, "the later meeting was in San Diego, after he
started writing articles about Eckankar. He was living in San Diego at
the time and was giving talks to small metaphysical groups at the
time. He had just started writing about Eckankar."
That would fit with my own research, since I had never seen any
indication of Paul mentioning Eckankar before 1963. One of the groups
Roy is referring to here, where Paul lectured in San Diego, was
probably the California Parapsychology Foundation, where Paul gave
workshops in late 1965 and early 1966, as I mention in my book. This
would have been immediately after Paul officially started Eckankar in
October 1965.
So, it makes sense that Paul would be talking to Roy at the time about
starting his own teaching. However, it seems odd that he would be
talking about Eckankar as his chance to be successful in a big way.
Paul couldn't even support himself at the time, and needed his wife,
Gail, to bring enough income for the both of them, while he was
getting Eckankar started. Paul said many times that it wasn't until
1968 before he could see that Eckankar would survive, as I shared in
my book.
Also, Paul's idea of success was far from what Roy's quote suggests,
as we will see below. So, the idea that Paul said Eckankar was his way
to a "big success" doesn't fit with the way he lived and what he
described everywhere else. I wanted to ask Roy further how sure he was
that Paul had used those actual words, but Roy ran out of time for our
discussion.
The next part of Roy's quote from Ford's book that we discussed was
when he wrote: "During one of my visits Paul pointed to some notebooks
and binders on a shelf by his writing desk and said, "One day those
are going to make me rich."
I told Roy that I had a number of problems with this statement.
"First, I have seen Paul's manuscripts and his writings. He never used
notebooks or binders. He typed everything on sheets of paper and kept
them in hanging file folders or in boxes. I've confirmed this with
Patti Simpson, who spent a lot of time with Paul in the late 1960's."
Roy answered, "He had something in three ring notebooks on his shelf.
I don't know what was in these notebooks. I never saw them. What they
were I don't know. So, I don't know if they were his Eckankar writings
or something else."
"The second problem with this quote, Roy, is that Paul had already
published 4-5 books by the 1940's, long before you met him. In fact,
Paul had written an article in the mid-1940's where he describes the
lesson he learned about books. He said they didn't pay very well.
That's why he gave up on publishing books and went back to writing
articles for magazines and newspapers. Did you know that he had
already published books in the 1940's?"
"I didn't know that," Roy said. "I didn't know anything about his
background."
"The third problem with the quote," I continued, "is that if Paul
really did think those books were going to make him rich, why would he
have waited so long to publish them? He wrote at least 3 of his most
popular books before 1960, yet didn't publish any of them until ten
years after he wrote them, or longer, and long after he started
Eckankar. In fact, he didn't publish two of them until 1970, one year
before he died. Wouldn't you think that if those books were going to
make him rich that he would have published them right away?"
"He might not have meant the Eckankar books," said Roy. "I don't know
what was in those binders. Maybe those were his plans for starting
Eckankar."
"Well, that doesn't fit either," I said, "since, first; he didn't
start talking about Eckankar until he met Gail in Seattle in 1963.
That was years later. And secondly, I've gone through his papers and
never saw any kind of outlined plan for the organization. He didn't
write up plans like that, and anything taking up a number of binders
would have been quite a plan."
"I agree," said Roy, "that Paul was living on the West Coast before he
started publishing anything about Eckankar. I don't know what was in
those binders. It could have been anything."
"The fourth problem," I said, "is that Paul was openly opposed to
making lots of money. He called it "grubbing for money" and criticized
our modern culture that promotes this idea of success. There is no
doubt that Paul lived exactly the way he spoke throughout his whole
life. He turned down a commission in the Navy because he didn't want
to wait after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and enlisted, rather than
waiting for his commission. He regularly walked away from jobs that
made more money, because he preferred his freedom. He drove an
inexpensive car and wore an old suit that was rumpled because he wore
it so long. Some of his followers asked him to buy a new suit and a
new car, but he wouldn't do it. He was only getting paid $40K from
Eckankar when he died. Gail confirmed again recently that he never
cared about possessions."
"That's not much money," Roy said. "Well, I agree that it seemed as if
he lived simply. He was always dressed simply. He looked down-to-earth
whenever I met him. I noticed that about him. He never looked
affluent."
I wanted to ask Roy if it didn't seem strange that Paul would be
talking to him about becoming rich, when he never said anything like
this or lived this way his whole life, according to everyone else I've
heard from or any of the records I've seen. However, we ran out of
time.
I also spoke with Roy about this portion of his quote: "I asked him
[Paul] about the claims of various people that he visited them in
dreams and by astral projection. He chuckled, and said, 'You know, if
you tell people something long enough they'll start to believe it!'"
"Roy," I said, "Paul never acted this way or spoke like this to anyone
else. The idea that he was scamming people or tricking people is at
complete odds with everything he said and did. He nearly worked
himself to death to get the teachings of Eckankar out, and wouldn't
slow down even when his doctor advised him to. Gail recently recounted
how he never stopped working. Even when they went to a movie, Paul
would have some paper with him to write down notes and ideas. He
worked continuously. He taught about the many aspects of spiritual
experience in great detail, and even his first wife reported that he
had always been interested in these things, even in his youth. He
described in a letter before he started Eckankar how he had helped
some of Ron Hubbard's followers gain out of the body experiences, and
there are thousands of people who reported the benefits of Soul
Travel."
"Look," Roy answered. "We were just two fellas talking. It was just
casual talk. But David Lane has written about this; how some masters
will lead people on to think that they were bringing these
experiences. I've seen the same thing in Yoga teachings. I've seen
some so-called Avatars in India. People come to them and tell them
they have experiences with them. They don't answer about it and they
don't verify these experiences. Then their followers talk about these
things and build them up into something real. These are some of the
things that happen at the mental level and the psychic level."
"Are you saying such things are not real?" I asked.
"In the most part I believe these are produced in the individuals own
mind. Sometimes there might be a sympathetic connection with the
leader. I've had people come and say the same thing to me, that I had
appeared to them or came to them in a dream, but I haven't been aware
of it. I've never had any first hand experience of this."
"You are saying that since you haven't had these experiences, they
never happen?" I probed further.
"I wouldn't be surprised if these kinds of experiences happen
occasionally," said Roy. "They might happen rarely. I don't know. But
I don't believe all these stories."
I completely agree with Roy that there are many who do try to make it
sound as if something tremendous is happening, when what is happening
is nothing more than people seeing symbols in their dreams, or
projecting the desires of their subconscious. However, it seems to me
that people exaggerating like this are no better than those who make
it sound as if all of these stories are bogus. If we want to address
this subject properly, we should be discussing how to tell the
difference, so that people can recognize within themselves when an
experience is coming from beyond their own understanding, compared to
their own projections.
But what is important to note here is that the real issue I was
bringing up was how it made no sense that Paul would say anything to
suggest that he was tricking people. I pointed this out to Roy.
He answered, "Well, maybe he was just saying that people would believe
something was possible if they heard about it enough. I don't know.
"But you know," Roy continued, as if to further show the questionable
practices of Paul, "that Orion Magazine stopped publishing Paul's
writings when they found he was plagiarizing. I became the spiritual
director of the Christian Spiritual Alliance in 1971, after one of the
founders had died. Christian Spiritual Alliance was the publisher of
Orion Magazine."
"Yes," I answered, "I saw you mentioned this before in Ford's book. I
have written a whole chapter on plagiarism in my book on Paul. You
might find it interesting that I found evidence of Paul's copying even
in the 1940's. But not many realize that plagiarism was actually
encouraged in journalism until the late 1970's or early 1980's. I
include a quote in my book from a respected authority on journalism,
where he explains that plagiarism was taught in the main textbook for
journalists from the 1930's, and was actually encouraged, because
information was scarce and would be lost if it wasn't copied and
passed on.
"Not all people in journalism felt this way. That is clear. There were
differing opinions especially since plagiarism is treated so seriously
in academia. But it was actually common practice in journalism back
then."
"Really?" Roy asked.
"Yes, I have a whole chapter on this in my book," I said.
"I'd like to read that," Roy said.
The last portion of Roy's quote that I spoke with Roy about was when
he said: "Paul's claim that he was representative of a line of
enlightened spiritual masters was fiction. My impression of him was
that he had a deep psychological need for recognition and to
accomplish something that would impress others."
"How do you know the ECK Masters are a fiction?" I asked Roy.
"Yes I think they are. That's my opinion. The names are not even
pronounceable. I think a lot of Eckankar is a fabrication. Paul did
have a background in meditation as well. He had studied meditation for
many years.
"You know, Madame Blavatsky told her later followers that she made up
her masters. They were fiction. The I Am movement went down these same
roads with their ascended masters. But these were fictions. People may
have had inner experiences but these weren't real masters."
"Did you know," I asked Roy, "that Paul's teaching was far different
from the way these other groups talked about masters? Are you familiar
with Sufism?"
"Only slightly," said Roy.
"Paul said his thinking was closer to Sufism than anything else. Their
teaching about the role of spiritual teachers is different from David
Lane's Radhasoami. When Paul was talking about an inner teaching and
an inner lineage, he isn't talking about an outer tradition like
Radhasoami. Paul said this.
"In Sufism, they talk about how a teacher brings a new concept or
inner element into the world and this becomes a part of the teaching.
It becomes passed on down through the teaching as a new inner
understanding that hadn't existed before. These teachers brought this
new shift into the world and then it became a part of the teaching.
This is what Paul was describing as the way that the teaching of
Eckankar came into this world.
"Paul taught about these masters as a means to experience the fuller
awareness of Spirit, not to look up to or worship some outer beings or
teaching. It was about learning to consciously work directly with
Soul's awareness of Spirit in its undifferentiated form. Spiritual
teachers have brought this understanding into the world. The
individual grows into a more complete possession of himself by the
conscious recognition of his personal share in the work of creation,
and by removing the limited ideas that come from external teachings.
That's why direct experience beyond the limits of our beliefs was so
important to Paul."
"I didn't know that. Look, I have another meeting right now, so I
don't have any more time to go over this, but if you can send me
information about your book, I would be interested in reading it,
since I met Paul," Roy said, ending our discussion.
It's a shame we didn't have more time to talk.
I can understand how someone who comes from a long study of meditation
would find it hard to accept teachings that make use of imagination.
In meditation, the goal is often to eliminate the imagination and all
the ways it distracts the mind and hides reality. It takes a great
deal of effort to see clearly one's own stream of thoughts without
being moved by them, so that one can recognize the present moment
exactly as it is and nothing more.
As Roy mentioned, Paul studied meditation and did teach this as one of
the techniques that could be used, but also realized that imagination
can be the door that opens new states of consciousness.
Imagination and belief are like the wind that fills our sails and can
carry us into the heart of life, if used properly. It seems a shame to
give up our ability to explore the depths and breadth of reality
because we refuse to use the sails on our ship.
That's why Paul wrote in his book, The Tiger's Fang:
"Some will say this book is the wild fantasy of a highly developed
imagination, but one must understand that there is nothing in the
world of God without some degree of truth. Even fantasy is cast out of
the material cloth of God, so how can fantasy be a complete untruth?
"This statement should stagger the mind of man and shake the
foundations of the teachings of orthodox religions, philosophies, and
metaphysical concepts. However, I am prepared to make my statements
out of pure experience and one must remember that all experiences are
unique only to the experiencer."
As any poet and artist knows, imagination and fiction often bring us
closer to truth than facts ever can, and the moment of recognition
that comes from seeing the whole truth is an experience itself, not
clothed by any form whatsoever.
Therefore, it seems to me that Roy's comments reflect more how his own
path of meditation sees the use of imagination by other teachings,
without having explored or understood the real meaning of those
teachings.
Also, Roy's comment sounded remarkably similar to what Ford had
written in his book and things that David Lane had said: "My
impression of him [Paul] was that he had a deep psychological need for
recognition and to accomplish something that would impress others."
What Ford and David didn't know, however, was how extensive Paul's
success had been in his early careers. I turned up a thousand pages of
articles about Paul, or by Paul, written in the 1930's and 1940's that
showed he had achieved outstanding recognition in three different
careers, long before he met Roy. If anything, Paul had satisfied his
desire for fame and then turned to helping other groups, and his study
of spiritual teachings. His Cliff Hanger writings show even further
how far he was from the ideas of success popular at the time.
I would have liked to have heard Roy's response to these added
thoughts, but unfortunately our time ran out. This, to me, however,
shows the benefits of open dialogue in gaining a deeper understanding,
and how the field of spirituality should never be studied from surface
appearances.
My guess is that Roy would agree with this.
Doug Marman.
Etznab
Doug,
Speaking only for myself, I thought your post was well worth the
time you took to write it. (Not to mention the time I took to read
it.)
Most of the information and dates you gave agree with what I have
seen. (With perhaps a small exception to Paul meeting Gail in 1963
- Seattle. I say this because the first letter to Gail is dated
December
1962 and I assumed that they met earlier than that. It doesn't appear
to be a big deal though, since the dates are not far off.
One of the things I especially liked were your references to Paul
Twitchell and money. What you said makes sense to me and it is
(at least in my own mind) not hard to imagine Paul feeling the way
he did about that.
The following quotes I personally found most enlightening:
"In Sufism, they talk about how a teacher brings a new concept or
inner element into the world and this becomes a part of the teaching.
It becomes passed on down through the teaching as a new inner
understanding that hadn't existed before. These teachers brought this
new shift into the world and then it became a part of the teaching.
This is what Paul was describing as the way that the teaching of
Eckankar came into this world.
"Paul taught about these masters as a means to experience the fuller
awareness of Spirit, not to look up to or worship some outer beings
or
teaching. It was about learning to consciously work directly with
Soul's awareness of Spirit in its undifferentiated form. Spiritual
teachers have brought this understanding into the world. The
individual grows into a more complete possession of himself by the
conscious recognition of his personal share in the work of creation,
and by removing the limited ideas that come from external teachings.
That's why direct experience beyond the limits of our beliefs was so
important to Paul."
From what I have seen in Letters to Gail - written even before the
"official" founding of Eckankar - that does appear to ring true with
the
way Paul Twirchell once wrote. In my opinion. And, it helps to hear
(read) more of your stuff so that I can better get to know from where
you are coming from. It helps to know the writer and what they are
truly saying, because the literal word can leave out so much.
Some more of what you wrote that I personally liked was:
Imagination and belief are like the wind that fills our sails and can
carry us into the heart of life, if used properly. It seems a shame
to
give up our ability to explore the depths and breadth of reality
because we refuse to use the sails on our ship.
(I'm including this part because it leads into the next.)
That's why Paul wrote in his book, The Tiger's Fang:
"Some will say this book is the wild fantasy of a highly developed
imagination, but one must understand that there is nothing in the
world of God without some degree of truth. Even fantasy is cast
out of the material cloth of God, so how can fantasy be a complete
untruth?
"This statement should stagger the mind of man and shake the
foundations of the teachings of orthodox religions, philosophies,
and metaphysical concepts. However, I am prepared to make my
statements out of pure experience and one must remember that
all experiences are unique only to the experiencer."
*********
Others probably, and myself more at one time, would say
oh bah humbug with these references to imagination. It is
not hard for me to see why this would be the natural reaction.
However, after reading Paul's earlier works over again, I find
more opportunity to look at what he meant.
I don't think it is really possible to fully appreciate the
writings,
or the person that Paul Twitchell was without being able to first
know him very well. It wasn't until just recently, after reading the
Letters to Gail - along with your latest book - that I really started
to feel much closer to this goal. Because, this time, I was looking
more intently at the person and not just the teaching. I think some-
times a person's words (and even their teachings) mutate according
to the "perspective" of the reader.
Others who haven't taken the time, done the research, spoken
with people who knew and were once close to Paul, I imagine it
would be possible to literally sway their opinions much easier if
they had not ever developed a strong affiliation with the man that
Paul Twitchell "actually" was. I mean, like people who have never
heard about Paul Twitchell or Eckankar before but come across
them through the writings of strong critics only. Not to mention
those that don't like him, or Eckankar, period.
Thanks for the work that you do and have done. Honestly I don't
know of anybody else in Eckankar who has done more research
on Paul Twitchell than you. I don't doubt that others have, but the
amount of history you have made available (and the way you made
it available) I feel is a good (and most of the time necessary) kind
of balance for people teetering on the edge of history and myth.
What I mean is that, personally, it is (IMO) good to see a balance
between the two - if not the true actual relationship between them
both.
Etznab
Sean
I had a cpl points to make about this, which are probably already obvious.
In your text was the following :
1) "We may have met a half dozen times,"
2) .. said Roy. "We just talked causally.
3) .... and remember it clearly." [ re in the 60's not 50's ]
4) Roy's memory, therefore, seems to further verify ....
5) You didn't have to be a member of the group to rent the
apartment.
6) "At a later meeting he [Paul] said, 'To be successful in a big
way, you have to have your own movement. ....... [ in San Diego 1965 ]
7) [Paul] said, "One day those are going to make me rich." [ re
binders/notebooks ]
-----------------------
OK, given the overall thrust of your post and the quotes above, I'd suggest
the following is important to keep in mind:
A) Roy only spoke with Paul "casually" and maybe only half a dozen times
from 1958/9 to circa 1965 [ 7 years ]. Therefore I'd hardly place much
credance on his "memory" as to it's 'reliablity' to offer much nuance into
Paul beyond the timing factors.
I am not saying Roy himself is unreliable, only that I doubt Paul [ or
anyone ] would have been fully frank in such casual conversations over time.
B) On more than one occasion I myself have made 'throw away comments" like
... *one day this will make me rich*! <G>
My friend who read your post here also said basically the same thing
themself. IOW it's a nothing statement in itself.
Also surely these comments by Paul need to be seen in the "context" of the
casual conversation he was having with Roy. Especially what did Roy himself
say [ and what did Paul pick up about Roy ] before this part of the
conversation with paul that Roy recalls?
This also goes to Paul's supposed comment about "to be successful in a big
way " really does depend on what was the topic of conversation, and exactly
HOW such a comment fits in with that.
C) Really I don't think these things matter much at all. [ But no doubt some
aspects are helpful nevertheless] What is far more reliable and credible is
those who spent much time with Paul eg Gail and Patti etc. I would even go
so far as to say that even paul's own comments at such venues as the Youth
Cinference in 1971 need to be taken wqith a grain of salt, as these are
simplistic overview comments referring to an earlier time of the struggles
to get Eckankar out in the beginning. Paul would have missed out a lot in
these types of sumarries, and would have been speaking from his SOC in 1971,
and the context of the group talk, and not necessarily all the swings and
round abouts that he managed from the late 50's thru 1963 etc.
D) In your text, one moment you picked up Roy for a poor memory re the year,
and then further on commented on Roy's memory "clarifying" something else.
Isn't this "cherry picking" even though Roy offered that his early 60's year
maybe wrong?
Again I am not criticising Roy, geez, whon has a perfect memory, but moreso
I think we may be expecting a little too much from him?
E) I still think it's good that you got to talk with Roy, and to clarify
some of the matters that were presented by Ford Johnson in his book.
F) Which I may add CoaGS must be seen for what it is, a very negative
portrayal of Paul and the ECK Masters. Ford came to this book with a
particularly hard POV imho, and it's no surprise to me that he would pick up
on these odd comments of Roy's and cast them in a very negative light, as he
indeed did do.
Yet the opposite could also made in your summary, where you are looking for
"clarity" that fits your POV. If one cherry picks too obviously, one may
leave themself open to unnecessary criticism and doubt, unless such things
are duely weighted accordingly, and openly.
Nothing wrong in that in itself, but given what I would suggest is a lack of
real "credibility" in using someone like Roy to make a point either way
about Paul given his short/casual contact, I think it's important to note.
That's all.
It's very much still a matter that our perspectives are set by our own
beliefs on an issue ... in this regard Roy had his, Ford his, David lane's
his, and you your's. And on we go.
And yet, I still see this feedback from Roy interesting and useful. At least
in correcting the extreme use fo such so called evidence by Ford regarding
paul's motivations for Eckankar.
I am myself, quite happy and unpeturbed to accept Paul's own words in this
regard. And always have. Not sure what my own "beliefs" have to do about
that, but everywhere I look the last 20 years or so I see substancial
evidence that what he said is exactly what it was.
OK, fwiw, and imho, hope that is of some use, and not redundant. :-)
Thanks Sean
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:1190508843.1...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Peabody's Buddy
On Sep 22, 5:54 pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> Conversation with Roy Eugene Davis, September 14, 2007.
Sweet Mother of God, will you never give your perpetual damage control
a rest Douglas???
Likely not, as you are as Brigham Young was to Joseph Smith. J. Smith
was the visionary and B. Young turned what was a despised cult in
danger of extinction into a fabulously wealthy and successful (more
Mormons today than Jews!) religion. Paul, Darwin and Hardeeji are the,
uh, visionaries, the odd-men-out, the Cliff Hangers and Ne'er-do-wells
that create 'castles in the sky' but need the Doug Mormon, er, Marmans
of the world to make their fairy tales come true, to fill in the gaps,
to do the hard (impossible?) work of making sense of it all. You are
nothing if not irrepressable Douglas and one can only wonder what
would have come of you had you taken that character trait and applied
it in more fertile fields than Paul's spiritual wet dream he boldly
named eckankar.
You know, come to think of it, I calculate those gold tablets of J.
Smith's weighed in excess of 400lbs. I wonder how he got them home to
translate them? <g> This is much the same as Paul's over-active
imagination creating a cabal of unlikely named Vairagi cartoon
characters (Rebazar, Fubbi, Yaubl, ad hilarium), appointing himself
the container of the Highest Consciousness in Existence, pretending he
could be in two places at the same time, lying about almost every
aspect of his personal history, including studying with a fictional
Sudar Singh in Paris, France, and his wholesale notorious plagiarzing
that compelled even the Org to withdraw The Far Country and Dialogues
(your favorite word!) With the Master. Need I go on?
Hmmm, would this fall into the Cliff Hanger category or the
sociopathic category?
So far, a big "so what" Dougie.
> "So, this agrees with your statement that Paul was living alone in the
> late 1950's, but doesn't it seem strange that he would get kicked out
> of the ashram at the time, yet he would come back to live there a few
> years later?"
>
> "He was living in an apartment on the property at the time," said Roy.
> "I remember where we met. I even remember the cross roads where he
> lived. But this wasn't an ashram. These were just apartments that
> belonged to the Church that they often rented out to like-minded
> people. You didn't have to be a member of the group to rent the
> apartment. However, I do remember visiting him there, and he wasn't
> married at the time."
>
> That seemed to clear up the confusion. This wasn't Premananda's
> ashram, but some apartments that they rented out. This suggests that
> Paul remained on friendly terms with the Church, even though he was no
> longer studying with them. It also seems that these years when Paul
> studied with Kirpal Singh and wrote for Ron Hubbard, he was still
> living on the grounds of the Self-Revelation Church. This paints an
> interesting picture of Paul's independence from all of these groups,
> along with his willingness to work with all of them.
To me, it paints a picture of a guy confused about who he was and
perhaps "collecting" and "borrowing" as much info. as he could on how
to run a successful New Age corporation, er, religion.
I met Roy Davis in 1963 in San Diego. I was 12. He stayed at our house
as a guest of my mother. She had a thing for him but he apparently
wasn't interested. She told me he introduced Paul to her and told her
later that he was "an unemployed writer". Shortly after that, Paul
began visiting my mother in our home. I can't tell you what transpired
but they remained friendly, along with Gail, until Paul's death in
1971. In fact, some of my mother's oil paintings hung in their home.
I asked Roy how somebody wrote a book. He had written and published in
1962, 'Time, Space and Circumstance'. He thought the question was
amusing and said basically, "you just do it!"
d another question about Roy's quote from Ford's book, when he
> said: "At a later meeting he [Paul] said, 'To be successful in a big
> way, you have to have your own movement. Paramahansa Yogananda had his
> Self-Realization Fellowship; L. Ron Hubbard has his Scientology;
> Eckankar is my thing.'"
>
> "When you said 'at a later meeting,'" I asked Roy, "were you still
> talking about your meetings with Paul in DC? That's what it sounded
> like from the quote."
>
> "No," Roy answered, "the later meeting was in San Diego, after he
> started writing articles about Eckankar. He was living in San Diego at
> the time and was giving talks to small metaphysical groups at the
> time. He had just started writing about Eckankar."
>
> That would fit with my own research, since I had never seen any
> indication of Paul mentioning Eckankar before 1963. One of the groups
> Roy is referring to here, where Paul lectured in San Diego, was
> probably the California Parapsychology Foundation, where Paul gave
> workshops in late 1965 and early 1966, as I mention in my book. This
> would have been immediately after Paul officially started Eckankar in
> October 1965.
That makes sense and jibes with my experience with him...
>
> So, it makes sense that Paul would be talking to Roy at the time about
> starting his own teaching. However, it seems odd that he would be
> talking about Eckankar as his chance to be successful in a big way.
> Paul couldn't even support himself at the time, and needed his wife,
> Gail, to bring enough income for the both of them, while he was
> getting Eckankar started. Paul said many times that it wasn't until
> 1968 before he could see that Eckankar would survive, as I shared in
> my book.
>
> Also, Paul's idea of success was far from what Roy's quote suggests,
> as we will see below. So, the idea that Paul said Eckankar was his way
> to a "big success" doesn't fit with the way he lived and what he
> described everywhere else. I wanted to ask Roy further how sure he was
> that Paul had used those actual words, but Roy ran out of time for our
> discussion.
How convenient for you that Roy "ran out of time". That allows you to
fill in the gaps in your own inimitable way, doesn't it Doug? Is this
called a Unilateral Dialogue? <GG> I have written this here before and
my 35 years life experience with the opposite sex confirms it, that
is, that Paul may have been disinterested in money and material
things, but I can assure you his wife Gail was not. I don't know what
kind of wife you have Doug, but my wife and I have a "joke" that goes,
"Honey, what do women want?" Reply? "Everything!" I know you aren't
exactly the most experienced, most worldly sort of dude, but take it
from me that many of us men know exactly who and what motivates us to
succeed...Women. I would add, from my own experience, that this
especially applies when there is a large age gap between the couple,
as in Paul and Gail's case. Smell the coffee Doug.
>
> The next part of Roy's quote from Ford's book that we discussed waswhen he wrote: "During one of my visits Paul pointed to some notebooks
>
> and binders on a shelf by his writing desk and said, "One day those
> are going to make me rich."
>
> I told Roy that I had a number of problems with this statement.
> "First, I have seen Paul's manuscripts and his writings. He never used
> notebooks or binders. He typed everything on sheets of paper and kept
> them in hanging file folders or in boxes. I've confirmed this with
> Patti Simpson, who spent a lot of time with Paul in the late 1960's."
Soooooo, you have the nads to essentially call Roy, a very respected
spiritual master for nearly 50 years, and who has avoided all the
types of tawdriness that surrounds eckankar, a liar? Have you no shame
Doug? Rhetorical question, Doug.
Proving nothing other than the fact you are willing to call a Man of
God a liar to further your obsessive cause, i.e., making the sow's ear
called eckankar into some kind of religious silk purse. You truly have
no shame.
>
> "The fourth problem," I said, "is that Paul was openly opposed to
> making lots of money. He called it "grubbing for money" and criticized
> our modern culture that promotes this idea of success. There is no
> doubt that Paul lived exactly the way he spoke throughout his whole
> life. He turned down a commission in the Navy because he didn't want
> to wait after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and enlisted, rather than
> waiting for his commission. He regularly walked away from jobs that
> made more money, because he preferred his freedom. He drove an
> inexpensive car and wore an old suit that was rumpled because he wore
> it so long. Some of his followers asked him to buy a new suit and a
> new car, but he wouldn't do it. He was only getting paid $40K from
> Eckankar when he died. Gail confirmed again recently that he never
> cared about possessions."
See above. Gail most definitely cared about possessions and is a
wealthy woman today. Paul was motivated by her. Doug have you not
studied the basic truth between men and women? Generally, men control
the money or ability to make money and women contol the sex. Gail was
quite the dish and Paul, from all accounts, was quite the ladies man,
to put in politely. What do you think the dynamic between them was?
Soul Travel? Pleeeeeze, Doug, we were born at night but we weren't
born *last* night....LOL
> "That's not much money," Roy said. "Well, I agree that it seemed as if
> he lived simply. He was always dressed simply. He looked down-to-earth
> whenever I met him. I noticed that about him. He never looked
> affluent."
>
> I wanted to ask Roy if it didn't seem strange that Paul would be
> talking to him about becoming rich, when he never said anything like
> this or lived this way his whole life, according to everyone else I've
> heard from or any of the records I've seen. However, we ran out of
> time.
Again, how convenient. Maybe you could have asked him how lucky Paul
felt to bed Gail, a babe 20? years his junior, or asked him what he
thought Paul was capable of to gain her approval and affections.
>
> I also spoke with Roy about this portion of his quote: "I asked him
> [Paul] about the claims of various people that he visited them in
> dreams and by astral projection. He chuckled, and said, 'You know, if
> you tell people something long enough they'll start to believe it!'"
>
> "Roy," I said, "Paul never acted this way or spoke like this to anyone
> else. The idea that he was scamming people or tricking people is at
> complete odds with everything he said and did. He nearly worked
> himself to death to get the teachings of Eckankar out, and wouldn't
> slow down even when his doctor advised him to. Gail recently recounted
> how he never stopped working. Even when they went to a movie, Paul
> would have some paper with him to write down notes and ideas. He
> worked continuously. He taught about the many aspects of spiritual
> experience in great detail, and even his first wife reported that he
> had always been interested in these things, even in his youth. He
> described in a letter before he started Eckankar how he had helped
> some of Ron Hubbard's followers gain out of the body experiences, and
> there are thousands of people who reported the benefits of Soul
> Travel."
Is this a pause for a commercial message? <g> Your second-hand
anecdotes leave me feeling empty. I knew Paul Twitchell on a first
name basis and all I observed dovetails nicely with most of David
Lanes and Ford Johnson's conclusions about the founding and
perpetuation of eckankar. See Doug, more intelligent and honest, if
not as driven, folks as you have come to the Occum's Razor conclusions
about Paul, eckankar, and the rest of it. If it quacks like a duck,
flys like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck it is a
duck.
>
> "Look," Roy answered. "We were just two fellas talking. It was just
> casual talk. But David Lane has written about this; how some masters
> will lead people on to think that they were bringing these
> experiences. I've seen the same thing in Yoga teachings. I've seen
> some so-called Avatars in India. People come to them and tell them
> they have experiences with them. They don't answer about it and they
> don't verify these experiences. Then their followers talk about these
> things and build them up into something real. These are some of the
> things that happen at the mental level and the psychic level."
>
> "Are you saying such things are not real?" I asked.
>
> "In the most part I believe these are produced in the individuals own
> mind. Sometimes there might be a sympathetic connection with the
> leader. I've had people come and say the same thing to me, that I had
> appeared to them or came to them in a dream, but I haven't been aware
> of it. I've never had any first hand experience of this."
I applaud the honesty of Roy. You should listen to him and learn Doug.
This is what all honest spiritual teachers have said about their
students having inner experiences with them. It comes from the
student, not the teacher as the eckankar promoters would have you
believe. Of course, that keeps unscrupulous New Age promoters in
control of the goodies, which is the whole idea if you are in sales of
any sort...
> "You are saying that since you haven't had these experiences, they
> never happen?" I probed further.
>
> "I wouldn't be surprised if these kinds of experiences happen
> occasionally," said Roy. "They might happen rarely. I don't know. But
> I don't believe all these stories."
>
> I completely agree with Roy that there are many who do try to make it
> sound as if something tremendous is happening, when what is happening
> is nothing more than people seeing symbols in their dreams, or
> projecting the desires of their subconscious. However, it seems to me
> that people exaggerating like this are no better than those who make
> it sound as if all of these stories are bogus. If we want to address
> this subject properly, we should be discussing how to tell the
> difference, so that people can recognize within themselves when an
> experience is coming from beyond their own understanding, compared to
> their own projections.
Projections, indeed. Can you say bias and covert agenda Doug? Sure you
can....the truth is that the Big Realization is a present fact,
"mastered" by nobody, controlled by nobody (least of all Hardy
Doodyji), and is not a future attainment, level by level. That this
Now is eternity and one must see it now or never.
Please advise the mahanta of this unalterable fact and to stop selling
hogwash to the people.
> But what is important to note here is that the real issue I was
> bringing up was how it made no sense that Paul would say anything to
> suggest that he was tricking people. I pointed this out to Roy.
>
> He answered, "Well, maybe he was just saying that people would believe
> something was possible if they heard about it enough. I don't know.
He heard what he heard Doug. Why to you call him a liar? You work for
liars and are a liar yourself. More than that, you lie to yourself
which is the worst kind of liar. Just like Paul, Darwin and Harold
(and J. Smith and B. Young). Perhaps these things have always been the
same with the True Believer ilk.
> "But you know," Roy continued, as if to further show the questionable
> practices of Paul, "that Orion Magazine stopped publishing Paul's
> writings when they found he was plagiarizing. I became the spiritual
> director of the Christian Spiritual Alliance in 1971, after one of the
> founders had died. Christian Spiritual Alliance was the publisher of
> Orion Magazine."
>
> "Yes," I answered, "I saw you mentioned this before in Ford's book. I
> have written a whole chapter on plagiarism in my book on Paul. You
> might find it interesting that I found evidence of Paul's copying even
> in the 1940's. But not many realize that plagiarism was actually
> encouraged in journalism until the late 1970's or early 1980's. I
> include a quote in my book from a respected authority on journalism,
> where he explains that plagiarism was taught in the main textbook for
> journalists from the 1930's, and was actually encouraged, because
> information was scarce and would be lost if it wasn't copied and
> passed on.
Doug still can't get his mind around what every school kid in the
country knows. It's *not* OK to copy somebody else's work and call it
your own. Period.
>
> "Not all people in journalism felt this way. That is clear. There were
> differing opinions especially since plagiarism is treated so seriously
> in academia. But it was actually common practice in journalism back
> then."
>
> "Really?" Roy asked.
>
> "Yes, I have a whole chapter on this in my book," I said.
>
> "I'd like to read that," Roy said.
>
> The last portion of Roy's quote that I spoke with Roy about was when
> he said: "Paul's claim that he was representative of a line of
> enlightened spiritual masters was fiction. My impression of him was
> that he had a deep psychological need for recognition and to
> accomplish something that would impress others."
>
> "How do you know the ECK Masters are a fiction?" I asked Roy.
>
> "Yes I think they are. That's my opinion. The names are not even
> pronounceable. I think a lot of Eckankar is a fabrication. Paul did
> have a background in meditation as well. He had studied meditation for
> many years.
>
> "You know, Madame Blavatsky told her later followers that she made up
> her masters. They were fiction. The I Am movement went down these same
> roads with their ascended masters. But these were fictions. People may
> have had inner experiences but these weren't real masters."
There you have it. As Diane Stanley, the artist who painted most of
these fictional masters has written:
"...These people (eckankar leaders) were not dummies. here they had an
artist that was an
empathic who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed
everything.. I was the missing link to bringing reality to all Paul
fictiouus Eck masters. I painted them, people could see what they
looked like,,they were real now. How could I paint what was in pauls
or
Darwin's imagined? I was an empath, I was able to tune into them
beliefs on how pauls caratures looked. So that was that. They used
me
at every opportunity tot use my work to paint book covers and even a
comic book on the Tigers fang My awareness of what a cesspool
eckankar
was came into my awareness when I went to work at Menlo Park. The
slow
insidious knowledge was getting harder and harder to ignore. I was
too
involved with Darwin and Gail on a personal level. I saw things and
watched with gowning horror as I watched my beloved eckkankar turn
into an exact replica of my birth family..."
>From the Horse's Mouth as they say. The "eck" masters are a
fabrication. Period.
>
> "Did you know," I asked Roy, "that Paul's teaching was far different
> from the way these other groups talked about masters? Are you familiar
> with Sufism?"
>
> "Only slightly," said Roy.
>
> "Paul said his thinking was closer to Sufism than anything else. Their
> teaching about the role of spiritual teachers is different from David
> Lane's Radhasoami. When Paul was talking about an inner teaching and
> an inner lineage, he isn't talking about an outer tradition like
> Radhasoami. Paul said this.
>
> "In Sufism, they talk about how a teacher brings a new concept or
> inner element into the world and this becomes a part of the teaching.
> It becomes passed on down through the teaching as a new inner
> understanding that hadn't existed before. These teachers brought this
> new shift into the world and then it became a part of the teaching.
> This is what Paul was describing as the way that the teaching of
> Eckankar came into this world.
Unadulterated bullshit. eckankar didn't come into this world, it came
*out* of this world. Straight out of Paul T's head.
>
> "Paul taught about these masters as a means to experience the fuller
> awareness of Spirit, not to look up to or worship some outer beings or
> teaching. It was about learning to consciously work directly with
> Soul's awareness of Spirit in its undifferentiated form. Spiritual
> teachers have brought this understanding into the world. The
> individual grows into a more complete possession of himself by the
> conscious recognition of his personal share in the work of creation,
> and by removing the limited ideas that come from external teachings.
> That's why direct experience beyond the limits of our beliefs was so
> important to Paul."
>
> "I didn't know that. Look, I have another meeting right now, so I
> don't have any more time to go over this, but if you can send me
> information about your book, I would be interested in reading it,
> since I met Paul," Roy said, ending our discussion.
>
> It's a shame we didn't have more time to talk.
Ha! Sounds to me like he was trying to get rid of the religious kook
on the other end of the line!! <GG>
> I can understand how someone who comes from a long study of meditation
> would find it hard to accept teachings that make use of imagination.
> In meditation, the goal is often to eliminate the imagination and all
> the ways it distracts the mind and hides reality. It takes a great
> deal of effort to see clearly one's own stream of thoughts without
> being moved by them, so that one can recognize the present moment
> exactly as it is and nothing more.
Imagination? Please. The correct word is "fantasy". You and your True
Believer ekkie cohorts engage in the most spurious kind of Magical
Thinking. Spurious because you have the intelligence and the
information but lack the guts to call a spade a spade. You lack the
courage to let go of your old ideas.
> As Roy mentioned, Paul studied meditation and did teach this as one of
> the techniques that could be used, but also realized that imagination
> can be the door that opens new states of consciousness.
Is neurosis and psychosis a state of consciousness Doug? I guess so...
> Imagination and belief are like the wind that fills our sails and can
> carry us into the heart of life, if used properly. It seems a shame to
> give up our ability to explore the depths and breadth of reality
> because we refuse to use the sails on our ship.
>
> That's why Paul wrote in his book, The Tiger's Fang:
>
> "Some will say this book is the wild fantasy of a highly developed
> imagination, but one must understand that there is nothing in the
> world of God without some degree of truth. Even fantasy is cast out of
> the material cloth of God, so how can fantasy be a complete untruth?
Again, straight from the horse's mouth. Paul was undoubtedly not
beyond weaving the most complex of baskets. He evidently thought it
was cute and was much preferable to actually doing the hard work of
ego-deconstruction.
> "This statement should stagger the mind of man and shake the
> foundations of the teachings of orthodox religions, philosophies, and
> metaphysical concepts. However, I am prepared to make my statements
> out of pure experience and one must remember that all experiences are
> unique only to the experiencer."
>
> As any poet and artist knows, imagination and fiction often bring us
> closer to truth than facts ever can, and the moment of recognition
> that comes from seeing the whole truth is an experience itself, not
> clothed by any form whatsoever.
>
> Therefore, it seems to me that Roy's comments reflect more how his own
> path of meditation sees the use of imagination by other teachings,
> without having explored or understood the real meaning of those
> teachings.
You do have no shame. You would call the longing for God Realization
via a proven and respected (unlike eckankar) spiritual teaching that
has a *real*, as in flesh and blood, lineage. If you think there is no
imagination there, read Autobiography of a Yogi. Some say it is more
imagination than fact. Do the research Doug, if you can digest what
you find.
> Also, Roy's comment sounded remarkably similar to what Ford had
> written in his book and things that David Lane had said: "My
> impression of him [Paul] was that he had a deep psychological need for
> recognition and to accomplish something that would impress others."
>
> What Ford and David didn't know, however, was how extensive Paul's
> success had been in his early careers. I turned up a thousand pages of
> articles about Paul, or by Paul, written in the 1930's and 1940's that
> showed he had achieved outstanding recognition in three different
> careers, long before he met Roy. If anything, Paul had satisfied his
> desire for fame and then turned to helping other groups, and his study
> of spiritual teachings. His Cliff Hanger writings show even further
> how far he was from the ideas of success popular at the time.
What, no example, no link? Come on, Doug. Give us the thousands of
pages of what Paul wrote in the 30's and 40's and give us references
to the "recognition" he received. Shouldn't be a problem, right? I
mean, you've already got it, right? Need I add this was long before he
met Gail and her 'cracking whip'.
>
> I would have liked to have heard Roy's response to these added
> thoughts, but unfortunately our time ran out. This, to me, however,
> shows the benefits of open dialogue in gaining a deeper understanding,
> and how the field of spirituality should never be studied from surface
> appearances.
Translation: "Even though Roy Eugene Davis is a respected teacher of
spiritual truth for nearly 50 years and has written extensively
without "borrowing" from others, he is a disingenuous dabbler whose
word can't be trusted." Is that about right, Doug?
You have no shame.
Did you know Brigham Young was, if not in on the planning, at least
aware of the infamous Mormon Massacre? How far are you willing to go
Doug in your tireless quest to present eckankar as something it is
not?
>
> My guess is that Roy would agree with this.
Your guess is shameless promotion in heartless support of your sick
agenda.
Mr. Peabody's (Harold Klemp's) Buddy
Behold the Master of the Universe...!
Contemplate next month in the Valley of Tirmir where all the spooks
gather...LOL!
Master Mr. Peabody, the 932nd Living Fraud
.,,3$$b,
,C$$$$$$$h,
??"J$$$$$$$b
d"J$$$$$C?$$$$L
d$$$$$$$$$h,?$$$
,zu,`"$$P" "?$$$$:
d$$$$b ` d$$$$c ?$$h
$$F`?$F <$$$$$$L "??.._
"$hcd$" `$L `$$$ ~-
""" ,$L ?$$$$$" d$$c - ._:
.........-<$$$$$$$$hc,""",z$$$??$$,
::::::::::::::?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$??h?$$$
,, `::::::::::::: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$h
J?b `:::::::::',d$$$$$$$$$$$$$FJ$ $$$$h
$h`r $$$$$$$$$$$$$c$$$$$$$$$$$:$$L???$$$$b
`$h3 `$$c$$?$$$$$$$$$$c$$$$$$F,$$$ ?$$$$$,
3$$$$bc )C`~==-,._ `?$$$h`$$$$c$$$$$$$$$P",$$$" ?$$$$$h,
`$$$$$F (. `"" hcJ~-,`?$$h "??$$$$????",c$$$P'u _"$$$$$$h
:" `?? ,,. `?? . "======="",d$$$PP' ,u ? `?$$$$$
'`~~===._"" `hcr ' == `"" ?? 4b,"??"
```~-._ ""= cu xr4u " J$c ??`-,.
``"-.." "? <c `, `?$ `" JN>'bx,
`? du _" " ?$ . -,_,`" '" `:,
) "" ?$ xr c $N .$P d$,"=cF
)'$ :. ' "$> :L `""",?$
>u `" 4R dr`? . ' ,?" $$" bq/
L` JN .. $$c u ?" "-,z_ "?'
,"" u ?" d$$$k cc
JerryCic
As a point of reflection. It has occurred to me that the process of nameing
something is the same process as having conceived that which the name is
symbolizing.
On the Conan O'Brian show. He would show a photo of something zoomed way in.
He would slowly zoom out until that magical moment when we say what it is.
At any moment along the way we may have identified correctly or incorrectly
just what it was. During the phase of discovery where we are unsure, we may
be saying to ourselves " an insect" "a blade of grass" "a peice of glass"
until we identify it in a mannor that is at the limit of our ability to to
conceive what it is. Like it was a peice of glass. Or was it.
When we look at Paul T and his ghost lingerring in the ethers of the here
and now, What we name it is how we see it. Those who see deceipt have used
that word to name it. And they see it through that lens.
Some of us have called it "i want to understand that" and equally are
limited to that name tag.
Even those of us who see the "Mahanta Consciousness Living and Breathing"
are limited by that tag.
When Pocahontas (Disney style) saw the sails of a ship upon the ocean's
horizon, she spoke the word "Strange clouds". And that is what she saw. She
saw the verry thing that she named it.
When i look at a tree, as soon as it dawns on me that it is a tree, Then i
see the tree. But the Name of anything limits what it is. We are really
naming our concept of it. So it is that i try to see beyond names and words
and labels. I look upon the "whatever it is" and cross over to the world
where it is what it is and no concept can capture its true name. And of
course sat nam means just that "True Name".
My point is this. There are some who visit here at A.R.E. and argue that the
inkblot is the Kal. They see it as being deceiptfull and entrapping. Others
see it as a source of knowledge or information. Others see it as pure love
eminating from the ocean of love and mercy.
And I see it as the formess inkblot. swirling currents of sugestion and
misleading inuendo. It is all these things and none of these things. Isn't
this what Paul T was?
One has to go beyond the practice of Naming things in order to enter into
the world of Truth.
just rambling doug.
Thanx again
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:1190508843.1...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Etznab
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr. Peabody's Buddy,
I'd like to hear more about Diane Stanley. Was that
a Diane Stanley quote in your post? I wasn't sure.
Some time back (one of these BB's) I asked about
her and if she was still a member of Eckankar. What
I was looking for was the date (approximate if not ex-
act) when she left - if, in fact, she did.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Found an illustration that appeared to say Diane Stanley
left Eckankar and got initiated by Charan Singh:
"....
Probably why I have always loved Diane Stanley's book cover
on Twitchell's THE TIGER'S FANG.... Ironic, to learn, that she
later left Eckankar and got initiated by Charan Singh.
...."
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/latest.htm
That appeared to be written in a diary from February 2001
(it's near bottom page at the above link).
Still haven't confirmed the actual date whe she left. Does
anyone happen to know the year?
Etznab
Mr. Peabody's Buddy
I don't know the actual year. You can glean it from the email posted
by Diana in 2002 to Execkankar at Yahoo Groups. In my mind, if anybody
is sitting on the eckankar fence and is looking for the "smoking gun",
here it is.
This is Diana's email in full, complete with misspellings, bad grammar
and the unmistakable fragrance of truth (including the subject line).
Subj: Re: [Execkankar] "It Saved My Life and In the End it Nearly
Killed Me!"
-- DS
Date: 9/2/2002 1:32:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: dianastan...@mindspring.com
Reply-to: Execkan...@yahoogroups.com
To: Execkan...@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Colleen thank you for your kind works. I guess just quitting the list
with out much input wasn't apporpert. I will tell a little bit about
my personal xperiences in Eckankar.
I will start by saying like many people who were raised in a
dysfunction family I was drawn to an organization that basically
mirrored my birth family.
The first few years in Eck were wonderful. I had been severely abused
as a kid. I felt safe for the first time in my life. I had loving
wonderful friends and we were all on a Spiritual journey home. I
believe it saved my life from suicide and from other family stuff.
That is what I meant when I said It saved my life .The other part of
the quote was and it nearly killed me is the part that I have to be
careful of talking about. I had natural empathic abilities and could
trance out into a different realms very easily, everyone has this
ability some more talented in than others like anything else. The
death knell began to ring when They discovered I was an artist. It
began before Paul died. He wanted me to do a sculpture of him sitting
on a stool and talking.
The funny thing ibis thee stature turned out great I had done it in
clay and was going to have a mold of it. So they could sell them. A
couple of days latter Helen Baiird came into my room and told she had
just been told Paul had died of a heart attack. and died. I looked
at the sculpture of Paul I had done and it had shattered and crumble
during thee night. So Paul never got his icon made..
These people were not dummies. here they had an artist that was an
empathic who was totally hypnotized by Paul's work. and believed
everything.. I was the
missing link to bringing reality to all Paul fictiouus Eck masters. I
painted them, people could see what they looked like,,they were real
now. How could I paint what was in pauls or Darwin's imagined? I was
an empath, I was able to tune into them beliefs on how pauls
caratures looked. So that was that. They used me at every opportunity
tot use my work to paint book covers and even a comic book on the
Tigers fang My awareness of what a cesspool eckankar was came into my
awareness when I went to work at Menlo Park. The slow insidious
knowledge was getting harder and harder to ignore. I was too involved
with Darwin and Gail on a personal level. I saw things and watched
with gowning horror as I watched my beloved eckkankar turn into an
exact replica of my birth family. when I family left 20 years ago I
moved to a new city. I resigned my member ship to eck and stayed
drunk for 2 years literally. Then my destiny took down the next road
in my Spiritual quest.I don't regret having been an eckist it was what
I needed at the time, It was the love and support of thee many friends
I made, I considered them brothers and sisters and to this day I
still am in contract with many. I joined eckkankar when I was 26 now I
am 60. now I consider myself and elder and have a responsibility to
due no harm but share what wisdom I have gained over thee years.
I am always available if any one wants to talk
Yours' in Spirit Diana Stanley
-----------------
Brought to you by Mr. Peabody's (Hardeeji) Best Buddy
Sean
"JR" <JohnR...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191024263.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hello Doug,
>
> What instruction would you have for those who want to ask Peddar Zasq
> themselves about his biography as a human? Going to the source is more
> reliable than hearsay.
>
> Would you or someone post the lines to Sri Twichell's poem in Anitya
> that speaks of the difference between the "True Coin" and the "Coin of
> the Realm"? I choose to put anything I hear about Twitchell's concept
> of "success" in the context of this poem. My copy was stolen from me
> by an old woman and sold to a book store.
>
> Zhe Zhe Ni,
>
> JR
>
>
Bugger!
I have that book, I do what I can to find the poem and post it for you JR.
[ don;t hold your breath though. busy busy :)