Eckankar Unpublished Works?
Etznab
After researching this subject I learned that the
"contract of purchase" happened in July 1982.
There are typos, but here is one account:
"Few members today know that on July 25 [< Typo?
Should read July 15?], 1982, I [Darwin Gross] entered
into a contract of purchase with Gail Twitchell Anderson
for her rights, titles and interests to all published and
unpublished written works and sound recordings of Paul
Twitchell, as attached. By the terms of that contract,
Gail 'assicned to the Corporation in the Care Of Darwin
Gross the certified copyrights and any and all unpublished
works of Paul Twitchell.' Gail imposed a vital condition to
her transfer of this valuable property ownership on the
Corporation."
http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem1.html
After looking at that account I noted two things. One,
the sale apparently happened AFTER Harold Klemp
became Living Eck Master in October 1981. Two, the
contract appears (accoring to this account) to mention
MORE THAN unpublished works (it says "for her rights,
titles and interests to all published and unpublished
written works and sound recordings of Paul Twitchell,
as attached.")
[I haven't located a jpg. image of that contract. I saw
it once, and Ford Johnson's site has a link to it, but
it did not come up. The page was blank.]
Considering the date, it doesn't make a whole lot of
sense why sale of those materials wouldn't just go to
Eckankar Inc. I wondered why did Gail include Darwin
Gross at all? Wouldn't responsibility fall to the new
Living Eck Master?
I searched further and found the following under a link
entitled "First Hand Account" (Bernadine Burlin). I will
quote excerpts that appear to pertain to this subject.
Quote:
One of my jobs, in addition to being Darwin's secretary,
was to work with Peddar's manuscripts.I kept a project
board in my office reflecting the projected printing sched-
ules for PZ's works, as well as manuscript considerations
from some of the initiates, with the possibility of additional
works by the two Masters. I provided the management
team, Board Members and the Masters with periodic up-
dates of these projections that ran through 1984.
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
In the following paragraph on that page, Bernadine writes:
Quote:
[....] He would take at least his secretary with him, as
provided in his Lifetime Agreement, and possibly one or
two others to establish a small office to work with some
of PT's unprinted manuscripts, and the other books that
had not yet been written by the masters. Peddar's widow
had assigned his published and unpublished written
materials to the Corporation with the stipulation that the
"Certified Copyrights and any and all [of his] unpublished
works" be "under the direction and control of Sri Darwin
Gross to assure their originality and proper presentation..."
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
A couple of paragraphs later she continues.
Quote:
With the help of the office manager, a couple of department
heads and office personnel, I began gathering together and
setting aside, items and office equipment to be taken to
Darwin's Oregon office. [....]
Two paragraphs later.
Quote:
The Oregon Corporation was called Dharma Aircraft Ltd. and
at the Board Meeting in June 1983, held after the seminar in
St. Louis, Missouri, the Minutes read: "Dharma Aircraft Ltd.
was discussed. After it was moved by P., seconded by J.,
and unanimously passed: RESOLVED: That Dharma Aircraft
Ltd. be renamed [Glen Eden Press] and set up and maintained
as a separate corporation to work with other income producing
sources to raise funds for (corporation).... It would initially hold
the books and copyrights and discourses. [....]
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
From the preceding information it looks like there is at least
a "possibility" some of Paul Twitchell's written works might
eventually be located in Oregon.
Two paragraphs later.
Quote:
"On Saturday, August 6, 1983, I was at the office to oversee
the placement of goods on the moving van for the move to the
Oregon office. A small office crew was there and aware of
these activities. [....]"
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
OK. So this is (apparently) a first hand account of someone
who might know what DID go into that truck.
*****************************************************************
Why is any of this remarkable? To me it is noteworthy be-
cause it looks like Darwin Gross was concerned about the
presentation of Paul Twitchell's works. Not necessarily
from the information in those quotes, but from other links
and articles I read on the subject, too.
How can you have two different people deciding on how
the works of Paul Twitchell get "presented"? Darwin and
Harold? Why does this prospect even enter the picture?
I asked myslef: What were unpublished works in the year
1982 at the time for the "contract of purchase"? One book
came to mind, but it initially didn't mean a whole lot to me.
That book was Letters to Gail, Vol. 3.
LTG 3 appears to be one book Darwin Gross objected to.
I mean, the version published by Harold Klemp.
Apparently, the 1990 version was not the first. In a letter
from Darwin Gross to Harold Klemp (1989), Darwin writes:
"Sixteen thousand copies of the original 'Letters To Gail III'
were printed in 1983. You had these shredded ... [....]"
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/dgtfitem1.html
The year of that apparent event is noteworthy (IMO) as it
happened AFTER the "contract of purchase" in 1982 and
it happened during the year Harold Klemp received files,
or the "Paul Twitchell library" from Darwin Gross. I mean,
the printing of LTG 3 (I don't know when the shredding
took place.)
Darwin Gross apparently had issues with another book:
"[....] Why did Peter Skelskey buy 25-30 thousand
copies of Paulji's spiritual adventure story 'East Of Danger'
at the October 1982 Board meeting, in Honolulu? What
became of these books? Where did Peter Skelskey get
the 25-30 thousand dollars to purchase the "East Of
Danger" books? [....]"
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/dgtfitem1.htm
I don't know what was Darwin's issue there since the
copyright date for that book appears (my version) to be
1978.
Concerning Eckankar unpublished works, however, such
as Letters to Gail, Vol. 3 (at least) doesn't the information
on this thread indicate potential disagreement between
two different leaders of Eckankar over how Paul Twitchell's
works should be presented?
I raise this question on account of possibility for revisions
and / or editing of the Letters to Gail series having at some
time taken place. Including any reported allegations of the
name Kirpal Singh changing to Sudar Singh (which I have
seen mention of).
The Letters to Gail Vol.s One & Two came out during the
leadership of Darwin Gross in the 1970s. If there were any
name changes in that series of letters I believe they would
have taken place when Darwin Gross was married to Gail
Twitchell Gross. However, here's the thing. The original
letters to Gail for Vol. 3 seem (to me) to be part of what
Gail sold to Eckankar in 1982 - releasing all of her rights.
I wonder what did the letters for Vol. 3 contain? Whether
they showed any evidence of name changes and editing?
If so, I suspect Harold Klemp would have learned about it
in 1983.
At any rate, did this arguing over Paul Twitchell "works",
over the right to determine what form they take have any-
thing to do with the split between Darwin and Harold?
It just doesn't make sense why Gail would mention the
name Darwin Gross in the sales contract the way that
Darwin described. Why should Darwin have any control
over Paul Twitchell writings and tapes, etc. in the year
1982? Especially since Harold Klemp was already the
Living Master (NOT Darwin Gross) since October 1981?
Were those copies of LTG 3 scheduled to be published
in 1983? I've heard they were a discourse series before
becoming a published book. I don't know when those
were a discourse series. They weren't a part of my dis-
course series (I've had all available discourses since
1987, I believe.) I'm also wondering now if all the original
"letters to Gail" were part of the sale. I don't mean book
or discourse forms, but the actual original letters.
Etznab
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a7dd1ec2-4132-44f4...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I really do think, well at least for myself, all of this is so much a bucket
of cooked spaghetti spilt on the floor that the likelihood of lining up all
the noodles again, in order, is well, impossible, and therefore not worth
any more effort on my part. :)
That's not to say I am not interested for I would be should any clarity of
these and other events ever come to light definitively. I'm happily resigned
to never knowing, really, I am. Happily so! <g>
cheers sean
Etznab
********************************************************************
I have personally seen the name "Kirpal Singh" crossed
out in the manuscript form of Letters to Gail. The name "Sudar
Singh" was written above it. I believe that Gail did the editing.
- Former Editor of the ECK World News, David Stewart.
[....]
"I [Doug Marman] happen to have been working as co-Editor
of the ECK World News with David Stewart at that time when
he spoke with David Lane. I remember when David Stewart
told me of this meeting. Although I had never seen the originals
of the Letters to Gail, I wasn't terribly surprised about the
editing,
since I had seen the original The Far Country manuscript, along
with a few others, and I had seen the same type of editing made
by Paul. [....]"
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Five.htm
********************************************************************
A record for editing of Letters to Gail would probably not be
complete without the original letters. How would an Eckist
learn about such editing? By reading the Letters to Gail
books AFTER the editing took place? I don't think so.
If their was editing and Gail sold rights to Darwin Gross, or
Eckankar - it doesn't matter in this case - who would then
become liable for the "proper presentation" of those works?
Well, then again, perhaps it DOES matter?
I've been looking at a lot of Paul Twitchell's written works,
along with any allegations and accusations about name
changes, revisions and / or additions to those works and
then I ask myself: Who is the liable party? Who is / are
the people responsible for the accuracy of those works?
Especially if changes were made to the written works at
a time before Harold Klemp became Living Eck Master &
the leader of Eckankar?
Is Harold responsible? Is Harold even liable? Is Eckankar
Inc. responsible or liable? Next, I ask myself: Who made
any revisions about historical events, changing details or
presenting a record of them that didn't square with actual
facts? Are such individuals liable for the presentation of
false records? Or distribution of knowingly false history to
an unsuspecting public? Is it the prerogative of organized
religion to do this? I mean, change history?
Paul Twitchell's files would contain the record that a person
would need in order to sort out factual history from pseudo
history. Apparently, Harold Klemp obtained such files from
Darwin Gross (the former leader of Eckankar) AFTER the
sale of materials by Gail (the wife of two Eckankar leaders.)
And because the 2nd and 3rd leaders of Eckankar, Darwin
Gross and Harold Klemp (since the official founding in 1965)
disagreed about who owned the rights for certain materials
and / or how materials should be presented to the public, it
looks to me like there is sufficient evidence to prove two, or
more, versions of recorded Eckankar history. Just a hunch.
Personally, as a member of Eckankar for over two decades,
I don't know what all the Eckankar books looked like in their
original forms. I don't know for certain how many times names
were changed. How many times words were either inserted,
or removed from the founder's initial manuscripts and books.
Furthermore, I am not exactly certain how to go about filling
in the missing history and facts except to dialogue about the
subject here at A.R.E. and other places with members and
former members who have some information. However, what
I found is that not even the members I correspond with have
all of the information and missing pieces. I can only surmise
that some materials changed hands in 1982 and 1983 after
a change in Eckankar leadership. The question comes up on
this thread whether everything changed hands intact. This is
my question. Not saying it need be the question of anybody
else.
The changing of Eckankar leadership, from references known
to me, became a consideration as early as 1980. According
to Doug Marman, at least. What happened in 1980 as well -
whether it means anything or not, you decide - Saturn moved
into the constellation Libra (in September). Harold Klemp was
not named Living Eck Master that October, however, but in
the following October (1981). The change was contemplated
in 1980, at least. By the time Saturn left the sign of Libra for
good, by August 25th, 1983, Harold Klemp was taking over
full control of Eckankar from his predecessor.
I mention this because Saturn orbits the Sun in about 29.5
years, which means it has returned to Libra once again. See
October 30th, 2009.
http://www2.bitstream.net/~bunlion/bpi/ephm/E200910.html
The Sun was about 28 - 29 degrees Libra on October 22nd,
1965.
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/1900/ae_1965.pdf
Saturn was between 28 & 29 degrees Libra in August 1983.
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/1900/ae_1983.pdf
There was an Eckankar Board meeting August 7-8 1983 &
a number of people were "apparently" removed from their
positions and / or their services terminated.
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=31
It's probably just coincidence I've started to look at and go
over the events from 1983 recently. This has nothing to do
with Saturn or astrology. I'm sure it's just coincidence. It's
all just coincidence. Probably just subjective history, too :)
Etznab
Rich
> changes, revisions and / or additions to those works and
> then I ask myself: Who is the liable party? Who is / are
> the people responsible for the accuracy of those works?
> Especially if changes were made to the written works at
> a time before Harold Klemp became Living Eck Master &
> the leader of Eckankar?
>
> Is Harold responsible? Is Harold even liable? Is Eckankar
> Inc. responsible or liable? Next, I ask myself: Who made
> any revisions about historical events, changing details or
> presenting a record of them that didn't square with actual
> facts? Are such individuals liable for the presentation of
> false records? Or distribution of knowingly false history to
> an unsuspecting public?
"unsuspecting public"? lol Oh, the poor victims... We've been duped, lied
to, it's all a sham!! Someone should be sued for liable! :-/ Promoting
dramatic paranoia seems more like it to me. Classic detractor speak. You
present this as if there is something wrong with it, as in being a
"detractor" of Eckankar, Paul, Darwin and Harold for having done so. As if
Eckankar, out of everyone else, should not have edited it's publications.
That's how it appears to me anyway... Why do you presume to know what a
"proper presentation" should be?
That idea is a logical fallacy. Why? Every single book you have read has
been edited. Have you ever read an original manuscript? Ever even seen one?
There are many reasons for editing. To answer your obsession, again,
Eckankar could have been legally liable for misrepresenting Kirpal's
teachings, yes? Isn't that a true possibility?
Paul edited his own books, and then Patti or someone else edited them, and
then maybe someone else proof read them and made changes. Every history
book you have read has been edited, perhaps multiple times by many people.
Every science, religious, fiction, newspaper and magazine writing has been
edited. Movies, TV, music all go through similar processes. It is SOP.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Sean
etznab. how do you find these things? :) i wonder what the eck vidya
patterns would show.
i'm interested about of this in a quiet way. my other reply was trying to
explain that i must be getting old or soemthing <g> because I'm finding it
too hard these days to be able to juggle all the info/details about the
history in my mind without getting a 'headache'.
just trying to place doug's recent info into some kind of accurate 'context'
or moment was an effort. trying to remember what is a known fact or probable
or possible or if or maybe about even just a time frame [ let alone some
other complex issue about the history ] is just getting too much for me i
think and it wears me out with little gain for the effort required.
[ and my typos are getting much worse too ;) ]
ok, but a sincere thx again for the info ... cheers sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:580dc53e-3ecc-405f...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Sean
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:hcsgp...@news4.newsguy.com...
Is that so? I wish rich read my posts, then i could ask him what does he
mean here? i've not heard things put this way before.
> Paul edited his own books, and then Patti or someone else edited them, and
> then maybe someone else proof read them and made changes. Every history
> book you have read has been edited, perhaps multiple times by many people.
> Every science, religious, fiction, newspaper and magazine writing has been
> edited. Movies, TV, music all go through similar processes. It is SOP.
>
editing may be SOP, yet the context is less common than all the other
examples given. The same sorts of issues and power plays occur when it is
the left over written or musical works of authors, musicians, teachers etc.
eg who controlled Cayce's materials he left was important and different than
regular editing ... there's serious choices to be made about what gets
published what doesn't and why. there's no pre-requirement for paranoia or
claims of conspiracy theories just to be interested in such things and wish
to understand how events unfolded and why. this is the standard SOP for
History.
Etznab
Rich,
Thanks for the subjective opinion about what I meant.
About why I wrote it. Any of it.
Etznab
Sean
Rich,
Etznab
--------------------------
aha, my work is done :)
I see now that you can see that what people think and believe has absolutely
nothing to do with you yourself, nor especially what you might happen to
write from one moment to the next.
wunda-bah! <smile>
and that no matter who it is is .. their view of history is always the most
objective of all, while any other view is far more subjective and fallacious
than their own would or could ever possibly be. Well that's what 'they'
believe is the case, and therefore this is how 'they' tend to behave. ;-)
and whilst I'm on it, the most outspoken against others' conspiracy
theories, is quite often guilty of their own degree of projection, paranoia
and conspiracy theory making on their own behalf. hehehehehehe
ahhhhhh i can take a rest now.
baraka bashad
Etznab
> "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
" ... there's no pre-requirement for paranoia or claims of conspiracy
theories just to be interested in such things and wish to understand
how events unfolded and why. this is the standard SOP for History."
Good point there.
Not to make things any more complicated, but I have to add some-
thing about the letters to Gail (since I mentioned them a number of
times).
It didn't occur to me at the time of writing, except later I
remembered
something. I don't know if this is true, but I think I remember
reading
it someplace that Gail sold everything "except" Paul Twitchell's per-
sonal letters.
Does anybody recall information about that?
What I mean to say is that I'm wondering if she sold rights to LTG
books, but kept the original letters for herself.
******************************************************************************
About finding things. I've a unique reference database for Eckankar
history chronicled according to time sequence. It is not like books
by David Lane, Doug Marman or Ford Johnson which all contain a
number of events, times, dates and places.
EVERYTHING in my trivia datebase gets cataloged according to a
time in history when it happened, or else when an event was / is be-
lieved to have happened. That is the overall context. TIME!
One advantage for using time context is how events stand out that
were reported to have happened at two or more different times.
It also lets me look at events in context to other events in time.
Having links to an ephemeris lets me look at planet positions for
any particular date. And a number of planetary positions and trivia
is already on my (now non-public) Eckankar "trivia" timeline.
All of this was the inspiration I got after a spiritual exercise years
ago when I asked for guidance about how to better understand a
number of things written about Eckankar history.
After looking over that timeline and having become familiar with it
(a number of the events and when they took place) it becomes a
lot easier to remember things. Or if I forget, it doesn't take much
time to locate the information. I can also page search the pages
(of which there are only four now) for particular words, names, or
whatever.
Lots of different people have helped and contributed to the infor-
mation I compiled about Eckankar history / trivia. My part has
been trying to put it all in order. It's like putting together an un-
finished puzzle. It's one big reason I ask so many questions &
are (at times) obsessed with clarifying data. Sorting out what is
indisputable fact and what is not. I learn a lot from doing this.
The only thing I regret most are the number of rays which I get
exposed to from spending so much time on the computer. I'm
one of those people sensitive to EMF. The flat screen monitor
with additional EMF screen over top is not enough to stop the
rays coming at me. And that doesn't include "psychic waves"
I feel from others (good and bad) who I correspond with online.
Usually when I post to A.R.E. I've got the TV going with 24hr
news, are reading the newspaper typing out the days events,
reading / answering mail and sometimes surfing the Web all
at the same time, or close to it. However, one person can do
only so much. I wish I had more time.
Etznab
Sean
Good point there.
******************************************************************************
Etznab
-------------------------------
Thanks for all that Etznab ... yes I forgot to use your timeline.
then again you have such interesting things there I am oft to get distracted
<smile>
and sometimes I can't the url i need. lol
OK try this query out for me on your time line please if you wouldn;t
mind...
Paul T is said to have gone to India on a trip and met Rebazar tarz in
person whilst there -- not long after, or soon after, or just after who
knows Paul was then supposed to be living in Washington DC - about 1955 for
a cpl years up untill the 1957 od-realization expereince "recorded" in TTF.
BUT at the same time as this "trip" to India Paul was supposed to be living
at premanda's ashram for the previous 5 years before.
and I have a slight recall did Doug find out that there was a record of Paul
did a trip to India either when still in the nazy 1945, or immediately after
being discharged ???
See ..... I have trouble even askijg a straight question, that's how damn
comvulted all this history really is.
and Doug's book doesn't help with no Index .. and the chapter structure
where info is placed all over the place. So going back to find something you
think you read in it, and it;s a forget it. :-))
I'm not complaining, this is simply what wears me out, and why I don't like
to get too involved for too long . So, I know your work in the long run
makes it easier for many now and in the future. it;s great <G>
and yes, sitting in front of computers isn;t great long term .... and
drinking sanke venok would be easier on your system than having 24 hr tv
news in the background.
Try some Santana mate !!! MUCH bettter :-)
http://www.youtube.com/user/BornOn4thJuly#p/c/FDFA4B074C65608D/0/CWUW-dKIGMI
Sean
be made explicit, but they often do not need to be, because we fill them in
almost unconsciously.
We can do that because we all believe that events in the past are to some
extent the causes of events in the future.
We can debate to what extent a person is shaped by what happens to them, but
we do not need to be devout determinists to have a practical and almost
instinctive understanding of the importance of casuality.
It is this understanding of casuality that makes stories so useful. Who did
what to whom, and when, and why, is interesting because of what we know
about the consequences of actions and events."
Critics, Go Here
http://mirrorh.com/critics.html
"Sean" <he...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4af1faee$0$6091$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Sean
>
>
another question if you're interested etznab ... ??
Sawan Singh died on or about April 2, 1948.
Sawan Singh visited Baba Kahan of Peshawar, who told him his Master will
seek him on his own. Stationed at Murree, he met Baba Jaimal Singh, who had
come for him and was initiated by him.
He retired in 1911 and set up Dera Baba Jaimal Singh at Beas whose
foundations had been laid by his Master in 1891, and built houses, bungalows
and a Satsang Hall.
He sheltered victims of the communal partition holocaust. His following
included Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and for the first time,
thousands from abroad in USA, UK, Switzerland and Germany as well. True to
his name, Sawan- The Season of Rain, he showered his Master's wealth
freely.He was very devotive to his master.
He transferred his spiritual wealth to Jagat Singh Ji , appointed him owner
of material weath of dera and died on 2 April, 1948 after initiating
1,25,375 souls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Sawan_Singh
----------------------------
ok, so do you have any info of Sawan Singh after 1911 ever leaving Beas
travelling to great britain or europe, and giving talks there, or doing
intitiations during a visit there?
OR did he have devotees to setup shop in great britain under sawan's
name/behalf, that ran satsangs or intitiated others??
---------------------------
thx sean
Etznab
Paul T is said to have gone to India on a trip and met
Rebazar Tarz in person whilst there -- not long after, or
soon after, or just after who knows Paul was then supp-
osed to be living in Washington DC - about 1955 for a
cpl years up untill the 1957 od-realization expereince
"recorded" in TTF.
BUT at the same time as this "trip" to India Paul was
supposed to be living at premanda's ashram for the
previous 5 years before.
Sean,
I'll look at what I have for Paul Twitchell in 1950 and go
from there.
1950
"In 1950, Paul Twitchell and his wife, Camille Ballowe, joined
the Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism in Washington,
D.C." [Based on: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 2]
[....] 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. [....]
[Based on: A.R.E. Post by Doug Marman (Conversation with Roy
Eugene Davis, September 14, 2007. - Sept. 22nd, 7:54 p.m.]
"[....] 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. [....]"
[Based on: A.R.E. Post by Doug Marman (Conversation with Roy
Eugene Davis, September 14, 2007 - Sept. 22nd, 7:54 p.m.]
Note: Hubbard seems to release Dianetics in May 1950.
May 9th, 1950: "The book Dianetics, the Modern Science of
Mental Health by L. Ron Hubbard is released. It decries hypn-
osis, and describes techniques for safely accessing in the
mind the contents of incidents involving unconsciousness,
hypnosis, drugs, and pain. It becomes a bestseller."
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/rvtimeline/index.html
1951
"Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills
of the Himalayas near Darjeeling."
Looking at the Past for Spiritual Lessons - Harold Klemp
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
"[....] My sole purpose was to find the elusive Tibetan lama,
known as Rebazar Tarzs, of whom I had heard much from
the late Sudar Singh at Allahabad. [....] It was a hot summer
afternoon in 1951. [....]"
[Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1,
Paul Twitchell (Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross), p. 32]
1955
"After I withdrew from a Yoga retreat in 1955, I went off to India
for a spell. Following this I settled in England to write another
book,
but the death of my half-sister brought me home.."
[Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume 1, Paul
Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross, p. 144]
1959
"[....] In about 1959, Paul left Washington, D.C., and moved to
England. Six months later he found out that his sister Kay-Dee
(Kate) was dying of an incurable illness. He immediately retur-
ned home to Paducah, Kentucky, and stayed with her for the
final two months of her life. [....]"
[Based on: Harold Klemp - See: Part Two, Research on Paul's
Life]
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisSearch.html
***********************************************************************
That isn't a whole lot. I know.
From what I can tell, it looks like there is a record for Paul in,
or around, Washington D.C. from 1950 to 1955 generally.
1955 was Kirpal Sing's first world tour, I believe, and when he
came to U.S.A.
The Paul Twitchell / Eckankar record of Paul Twitchell going
to India in 1951 ... What can I say about it? I don't know for
sure whether there is evidence to support that claim. Maybe
if he went on the inner? Or another body? OK :)
[Anybody else with more information about Paul Twitchell in
India (1951) please go ahead and share.]
Since the book Dianetics came out in 1950 and Paul T. had
reportedly done PR for different groups in the 50s I would go
check for a record of his time spent with them. See whether
he mentions a trip. Or if he went missing during the summer
of 1951.
When Paul Twitchell allegedly met Rebazar Tarzs in India in
1951, I thnk Paul suggested it was summer.
I would check for Paul Twitchell history for summer 1951 and
see if there are other records about places he might have lived
(besides with his wife on "church grounds" in D.C).
This is all I can say about the topic for now. My information is
limited concerning where was Paul Twitchell in 1951.
Etznab
Etznab
> "Sean" <h...@home.net> wrote in message
Sean,
Good questions. IMO.
I have links to paragraphs and paragraphs about Sawan Singh.
What I compiled from those links does not appear to mention
travel to Europe. However, that doesn't mean I know he didn't.
It would take time to read all the page links. My guess is that
Sawan Singh didn't go to Europe. That is only a guess.
Perhaps some of the following individuals traveled to Europe?
"Sawan Singh gathered a large following of disciples from around
the world. Among his devotees were Dr. Julian P. Johnson, Dr.
Pierre Schmidt, Col. C.W. Sanders, Sant Kirpal Singh (founder
of Ruhani Satsang), Sant Darshan Singh (founder of Sawan-Kirpal
Mission), Baba Somanath, Pritam Das, and several government
officials in both the British and Indian ranks."
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/saint.htm
Julian Johnson's book The Path of the Masters (I think) was first
published in Paris, France - 1939?
Kirpal's world tour was 1955. I don't know if he went to Europe
before that time.
BTW, there was (reportedly) mention of Sawan Singh in Intro. to
Eckankar and the early versions of The Flute of God. However, if
the name has since been changed I don't know how we can tell
what Paul said about him in those books.
I recall mention of Sudar Singh giving lectures or talks in Europe.
"It was upon their return to Paris that Paul met Sudar Singh for
the first time. The Indian holy man was lecturing in France in an
effort to gain sincere disciples."
[Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright
1968?), p. 51]
That was a good question (IMO) about an Indian guru lecturing in
Europe. I had seen references to Sudar Singh being there giving
talks, or lectures. This is why I think if Sudar Singh really existed
then people could probably find something from Europe or France.
The dates are uncertain, but I think if a Sudar Singh actually were
in Europe it would have been the latter 20's when Paul Twitchell
was a teenager (using a 1909 D.O.B.).
If I have time I can look at the history for Indian gurus and when
they began traveling to Europe and the U.S.A.
One of the early Indian gurus I know to have traveled abroad was
Swami Vivekananda. He was at the first "World Congress of Re-
ligions", I believe (I think it has a different name nowadays. Umm,
isn't there something coming up in Australia soon?)
"Swami Vivekananda at the World Congress of Religions. Sept-
ember 11, 1893."
http://www.swamij.com/swami-vivekananda-1893.htm
BTW, look at that date.
[Ground was broken for the Temple of Eck September 11th,
1989? 96 years to the day? - counting from 09/11/1893]
And 09/11/2001 was 108 years to the day - from 09/11/1893.
09/11/2001 occurred 12 years to the day from 09/11/1989.
... don't get me going :)
Anyhow, the Indian gurus were traveling around the turn of the
century - and into the early 1900s (especially) the numbers of
them began to grow. There is definitely a probability for some
of them lecturing in Europe in the 1920s, IMO. Question is,
was there a Sudar Singh? Even a Sawan Singh there around
that time? (Not to mention an art student named Kate and her
little brother Paul.)
Like I said. Good questions. IMO.
Etznab
P.S. Second post for this message. The first version I deleted
on account of a typo. I mistakenly had cornerstone laid instead
of ground broken for temple of Eck - 09/11/1989.
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e181b20c-5d79-41a2...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b34b2f17-4f68-4f46...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Etznab
Ground was broken for another building on September 11th. That
was in 1941.
1941 – Ground is broken for the construction of The Pentagon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11
Sixty years later = 09/11/2001
Etznab
Rich
> Rich,
>
> Thanks for the subjective opinion about what I meant.
> About why I wrote it. Any of it.
Perhaps my satirical dramatizing in the first couple sentences...
Deny or be a blind eye if you must. You really don't see this in yourself?
Seriously?
Suggesting that Harold might be liable is an objective observation.
Virtually all books are edited is an objective fact.
I could find in a search where Eckanakar's detractors have expressed this
sentiment dozens if not hundreds of times -> "distribution of knowingly
false history"
Only a dimwit could have gotten the impression from the way you wrote that
it was _not_ wrong to have changed the original manuscripts.
Ken
My observation is that it's perfectly okay for the current Living ECK
Master to change older texts, and it's to be expected. Unless that is,
you want to venerate and worship the earlier teacher and set him up on a
pedestal. In that case, maybe we should have "relics" of Paul on
display in each of the local temples ...
;-)
--
Ken
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
news:AbOdnZ9m2t-XeG_X...@supernews.com...
Rich: You present this as if there is something wrong with it...
Ken : My observation is that it's perfectly okay for the current Living ECK
Master to change older texts, and it's to be expected.
Sean: My observation is that you two light bulbs are suffering a severe
shortage of voltage. Who said there was anything wrong with the current LEM
changing or editing texts, and where exactly did they say it? Ya reckon you
could manage a copy/paste and just simply 'spell it out' in black and white
pixels ......
I sure do hope you guys are better equipped at reading the ECK works than
you are in reading newsgroup posts .... well for your own benefit at least.
<vbg>
Actually talking about the Eck works ... who was the living Eck master in
1964?
And, while you're at it, according to the Eck works/teachings including the
Shariyat books ... is it possible for a deceased LEM to give an Initiation
[ inner or outer ] to living neophytes?
.......... I mean here ... 1) according to the written ECK doctrine , and
2) according to your own inner realizations about Truth
Just being curious about how well you can walk the talk here ... ;-)
Rich
Yeah Ken, that is kind of amusing. Like Paul should be regarded as perfect,
never contradicted himself, all his writings and words must be regarded
literally. As if everything of his(or what others say about their
experience of or with him) must be taken as accurately researched and
documented history by or about him, never off the cuff, general remarks, or
fictionalized stories, and thus never be changed. :-)
Sean
Well gee I don't think that way, and it should be as clear as day that
Etznab doesn't think that either ..... so what on EARTH are you two
gas-bagging about here? Can anyone else join in this high level nuanced
discussion?
You haven't started drinking and doing drugs have you because of the boredom
of a lack of threads about God realization, how to Love God, or how to be
respectful of others? <smile>
LOL
Sean
white" fallacy, is an informal logical fallacy where an individual presents
an argument having only few competing alternatives, but in reality there are
many more.
The fallacy in its general form looks like this:
P or Q
Not P
Therefore Q
False dichotomy is not a valid form of induction.
In other words, never let the facts get in the way of a good STORY when one
has a bias to promote and market to the world.
Sean
white" fallacy, is an informal logical fallacy where an individual presents
an argument having only few competing alternatives, but in reality there are
many more.
The fallacy in its general form looks like this:
P or Q
Not P
Therefore Q
False dichotomy is NOT a valid form of induction.
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
news:AbOdnZ9m2t-XeG_X...@supernews.com...
Yes, this is the 3rd reply. But one doesn't break thru a rock of quartz to
get to the gold in one hit of the hammer.
>
> My observation is that it's perfectly okay for the current Living ECK
> Master to change older texts, and it's to be expected. Unless that is,
> you want to venerate and worship the earlier teacher and set him up on a
> pedestal. In that case, maybe we should have "relics" of Paul on display
> in each of the local temples ...
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Ken
>
Maybe you could *Contemplate* on this Ken ....................... ????
-----
In regards the new info about Paul in the 50's as shared by Doug Marman
Sean said at one point:
Whilst I really appreciate and get so much from Paul's writings not
everything he had to say was necessarily 100% all the time and much may not
necessarily apply in todays world. Especially if it's taken out of the
holistic context that was Paul's life work and intention - and cherry picked
unfairly.
And Etznab replies with several points including this ....
In a way, I think this looking at things from the past is
a lesson in objectivity. Much more a challenge than for
people who were there at the time and personally knew
the people involved.
It requires a lot of discipline, a lot of
not jumping to conclusions without considering all of the
facts, a lot of stating when something is an opinion, or a
guess, and a lot of reminders to people what the person
investigating does, or does not really know.
With that in mind, I think you could be right about the
mention, or inclusion of Kirpal Singh's name. Personally
though, I don't feel I have enough tangible and factual
evidence to conclude it as absolute fact. It's more like a
suspicion.
I'm not saying this to take sides and argue
for Eckankar that it was really Rebazar Tarzs who Paul
"saw" as the person who accompanied him through so
many spiritual planes.
I'm not saying that, because the
original manuscripts, their genesis / evolution are not in
my hands.
==================
So I say that anytime Rich and Ken are up to making mature intelligent and
appropriate comments that actually reflect the reality, or even joining in a
real genuine discussion vs throwing mud ... feel free.
Should the subject not be of interest to you, then also feel free to ignore
it [ if you can muster the self-control to do that. ] .
Until then, maybe you could get some personal self-control over the
Knee-Jerks ??
As the consistent pattern suggests, you both have this ability to get things
completely ass-backwards and upside down all in the one utterance.
me, I am simply doing my best to help you out, because it really honestly
repeatedly looks like you need it!
<G>
Sean
snippers
>>
>> My observation is that it's perfectly okay for the current Living ECK
>> Master to change older texts, and it's to be expected. Unless that
>> is, you want to venerate and worship the earlier teacher and set him
>> up on a pedestal. In that case, maybe we should have "relics" of
>> Paul on display in each of the local temples ...
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Yeah Ken, that is kind of amusing. Like Paul should be regarded as
> perfect, never contradicted himself, all his writings and words must be
> regarded literally. As if everything of his(or what others say about
> their experience of or with him) must be taken as accurately researched
> and documented history by or about him, never off the cuff, general
> remarks, or fictionalized stories, and thus never be changed. :-)
>
Yes, this is the 3rd reply. But one doesn't break thru a rock of quartz to
get to the gold in one hit of the hammer.
Maybe you could *Contemplate* on this Rich ....................... ????
Sean
>
> "Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
> news:hcviv...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> snippers
>
>>>
>>> My observation is that it's perfectly okay for the current Living ECK
>>> Master to change older texts, and it's to be expected. Unless that
>>> is, you want to venerate and worship the earlier teacher and set him
>>> up on a pedestal. In that case, maybe we should have "relics" of
>>> Paul on display in each of the local temples ...
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Yeah Ken, that is kind of amusing. Like Paul should be regarded as
>> perfect, never contradicted himself, all his writings and words must be
>> regarded literally. As if everything of his(or what others say about
>> their experience of or with him) must be taken as accurately researched
>> and documented history by or about him, never off the cuff, general
>> remarks, or fictionalized stories, and thus never be changed. :-)
>>
>
> Yes, this is the 3rd reply. But one doesn't break thru a rock of quartz to
> get to the gold in one hit of the hammer.
>
>
> Maybe you could *Contemplate* on this Rich ....................... ????
>
> -----
>
Yes, this is now the 4th REPLY.
But one doesn't break thru a rock of quartz to get to the gold in one hit of
the hammer.
Written by Etznab about 5 days ago .........
> One of the faces of Eckankar I believe that people
> are prone to see is the "perfect" face. The one where
> everything Paul Twitchell wrote was the truth and it
> corresponded with an actual physical history in the
> way that he described it. To discover that is not the
> whole truth is IMO certainly like the death of an ideal.
> This is the challenge for some people as I see it. The
> completion of the process for death of an ideal and
> moving on from there. I think a lot of people have act-
> ually done this to various extents, but that others
> have not even begun to do so .................
Sean
>
> "Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
> news:AbOdnZ9m2t-XeG_X...@supernews.com...
>
> Yes, this is the 3rd reply. But one doesn't break thru a rock of quartz to
> get to the gold in one hit of the hammer.
>
>>
>> My observation is that it's perfectly okay for the current Living ECK
>> Master to change older texts, and it's to be expected. Unless that is,
>> you want to venerate and worship the earlier teacher and set him up on a
>> pedestal. In that case, maybe we should have "relics" of Paul on display
>> in each of the local temples ...
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Ken
>>
>
Yes, this is now the 4th REPLY.
But one doesn't break thru a rock of quartz to get to the gold in one hit of
the hammer.
Written by Etznab about 5 days ago .........
> One of the faces of Eckankar I believe that people
> are prone to see is the "perfect" face. The one where
> everything Paul Twitchell wrote was the truth and it
> corresponded with an actual physical history in the
> way that he described it. To discover that is not the
> whole truth is IMO certainly like the death of an ideal.
> This is the challenge for some people as I see it. The
> completion of the process for death of an ideal and
> moving on from there. I think a lot of people have act-
> ually done this to various extents, but that others
> have not even begun to do so .................
So Ken, I see that YOU and ETZNAB are in fact in AGREEMENT here.
Amazing, yes?
Truly it is. <G>
Etznab
> "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
I'm watching the news conference now about the shooting
at Fort Hood. There were several facts mentioned that did
indeed contradict what the news media said beforehand.
For one thing, the shooter was reported alive and in stable
condition. He was reportedly shot by the first responder. A
female officer.
The story is a good example about how people jump to
conclusions. Everybody listening to the news and those
who were not there in person were prone to believe what
they thought happened according to what others said.
The fact that information got reported from the apparent
authorities, it did not necessarily add up to the facts. A
number of things reported were true. Yes. But a number
of things reported were not.
Now of course the media stations were reporting what
information they had and were not really stating every
single thing as fact. And though they talked about the
days events, each speculating according to information
they heard (right or wrong), people listening could very
easily go away believing fiction for fact.
Now Larry King LIve is on and people continue talking
about why the Major shot people. They don't all agree.
Even Dr. Phil is there!
Probably for another several hours, or the rest of the
night people will talk about what they generally believe
to be true. Until the next time someone comes out with
the actual truth.
BTW, the news conference kept getting pushed back
again and again. It didn't take place on time. And when
it did I think a number of people were humbled by the
fact they didn't have all the facts!
Probably a good thing to admit when something is an
opinion, uncertain, speculative, a guess, second and
third hand accounts, etc.
I've noticed it a number of times when initial reported
events later turn out to be different in some ways.
Etznab
Etznab
Larry King just mentioned it was not a CNN mistake that
the shooter was reported to be dead. Larry said something
about a military officer initially telling them the shooter was
dead, but the military waited several hours to admit what
they already knew. That the shooter was NOT dead. It was
something to that effect what Larry King said (those were
not necessarily his exact words, but my own words accord-
ing to the way I remembered it).
Imagine that. People waiting a long time to finally come out
with the truth. Happens all the time. IMO.
Etznab
Sean
>
> me, I am simply doing my best to help you out, because it really honestly
> repeatedly looks like you need it!
>
> <G>
I'm watching the news conference now about the shooting
at Fort Hood. There were several facts mentioned that did
indeed contradict what the news media said beforehand.
For one thing, the shooter was reported alive and in stable
condition. He was reportedly shot by the first responder. A
female officer.
The story is a good example about how people jump to
conclusions.
-------------
SEAN: exactly and that is what I have said recently on SEVERAL OCCASIONS
here recently even to DOUG, and the our two buddies here ...
--------------
Everybody listening to the news and those
who were not there in person were prone to believe what
they thought happened according to what others said.
YEP
The fact that information got reported from the apparent
authorities, it did not necessarily add up to the facts. A
number of things reported were true. Yes. But a number
of things reported were not.
YEP
Now of course the media stations were reporting what
information they had and were not really stating every
single thing as fact. And though they talked about the
days events, each speculating according to information
they heard (right or wrong), people listening could very
easily go away believing fiction for fact.
YEP
Now Larry King LIve is on and people continue talking
about why the Major shot people. They don't all agree.
Even Dr. Phil is there!
DR PHIL ??? wow ;-))
Probably for another several hours, or the rest of the
night people will talk about what they generally believe
to be true. Until the next time someone comes out with
the actual truth.
YEP
BTW, the news conference kept getting pushed back
again and again. It didn't take place on time. And when
it did I think a number of people were humbled by the
fact they didn't have all the facts!
Probably a good thing to admit when something is an
opinion, uncertain, speculative, a guess, second and
third hand accounts, etc.
I've noticed it a number of times when initial reported
events later turn out to be different in some ways.
Etznab
----------------
YEP .... what can I say that would make any differecne? <smile>
BTW what shooting at Fort Hood?
You mean I missed something?? OOOOPSIE
<smile>
cheers sean
Sean
Etznab
=============================
Tis shocking indeed that one might one day find themselves in a situation
that required a re-thinking and re-appraisal about accepted HISTORICAL
beliefs.
trully scary stuff .... NOT ! <VBG>
thx etznab ... I hope the penny will drop oneday for our mates and they can
have a break from being the permanent MIND POLICE ;-))
Sean
Paul I re-read this bit that I wrote a few days ago now .... seems apt as
teaching moment, more than ever today.
from the thread
New info on Paul from the 1950's
-----
Why a manuscript? Because Paul was an author, a writer, a journalist, first
and foremost. The manuscripts were his in the moment Journal of his
spiritual Life, that is what a journalist does - he records it. If he was a
musician instead .. well he wouldn't have written as many books. :)
But as per the recent example I posted here about the media and journalism
..... news reports are the first reports and records of history "in the
making" [ a nice connection to a college paper <G> ]
It is known that mistakes occur in "news reports" and that these are
corrected as time goes on. Information is breaking news is incomplete by
nature. Things as simple as the numbers dead, or people involved change over
time as a new event occurrs and unfolds ... and as more and more INFO
beocmes available sometimes the entire initial report is seen to be in
error.
eg the King wasn't killed, he was just wounded, the queen was the one killed
.. and now this news has been confirmed as "true and accurate" .. this is
what Journalists do... the story gets revised and revised and revised as new
info becomes available ... and eventually top shelf Hisotrians get involved
and RE-record the History ... supposedly more accurately in hindsight than
*As It Happened.*.
This is what Paul did, IMO .... and why he had so mnay manuscripts that
could be dusted off .. and REVISED with the latest info he then *knew* to
be far more accurate.
===============
OK mate, I think I am pretty done here ...... um, over-done actually.
Please DO email me direct if you notice I am not around, [ for I won't be
much ] and you or doug find some other hisotrical gem or document or info
about Paul T and others.
Thanks etznab .... GOOD LUCK :)
Warmest Regards and with much gratitude,
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b08a1be-220c-41f4...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Sean
"Sean" <he...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4af3dbda$0$1781$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
RE this
>
> This is what Paul did, IMO .... and why he had so mnay manuscripts that
> could be dusted off .. and REVISED with the latest info he then *knew* to
> be far more accurate.
>
> ===============
>
I am not that convinced about others doing the editing ends up with
something more "accurate" .... though in hindsight, by following the same
pattern that Paul had already laid down over 6 years ... they may have ended
up with a similar result if Paul was still around.
BUT ....... this is when the end-user ends up with info that suggests that
Sudar Singh was giving Eckankar Initiations in the role of the Living ECK
Master a decade or two after he had supposedly already translated ... [ if
in fact a man of that name ever even lived. ]
Does this make any significant to the ECK teachings ??? Um, no, unlikely.
But it sure isn't professional and it sure isn't accurate, either in a
mundane history sense OR as a consistent doctrine/teaching sense.
Yet, as Paul himself recognised in a talk not long before he translated " we
are finding that we have to go back and correct some of the things we have
said before and re-do them..."
sic- my memory of an audio tape .. 1971
<smile>
Doug
I remember reading an ECK World News or Mystic World article that
described Gail's sale of her ownership of the copyrights to Paul's
writings, but it happened back in 1979 or thereabouts. It was years
before Harold became the Master.
I'm assuming that is the contract that Darwin was talking about. Why
would Gail sell it again later? So, the 1982 date doesn't sound right
and maybe was referring to something else.
It made perfect sense for her to mention Darwin's name in the contract
in 1979.
Yes, there was a big issue over Letter's To Gail III. Harold and
Darwin didn't agree on how it was handled. Darwin went ahead and put
it into print without running it by Harold, and there were sections
that Harold simply didn't agree with. Harold had them destroyed before
any of them shipped. Later he released some of them in discourse form,
and then finally in book form.
I agree completely with you that Darwin wanted nothing more than to
protect Paul's writings. Harold, however, had notes in Paul's own
handwriting, showing that he wanted his manuscripts to be properly
edited. So, that was Harold's view.
I recently heard Gail say something about this and she thought that
Paul would have preferred that his writings were not edited, which was
the way Darwin felt about it. But Harold did show me the quotes from
Paul where he said that he expected his writings would be edited and
he wasn't opposed to it and expected it would need to happen.
The East of Danger book was an unpublished manuscript that Darwin put
into print without any editing, and the book seriously needed editing.
I don't think Paul would ever have let it go into print that way. It
reads like a rough draft.
You are right that one person would need to make the final decision
and that ended up being Harold.
Doug.
On Nov 3, 7:29 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> After researching this subject I learned that the
> "contract of purchase" happened in July 1982.
> There are typos, but here is one account:
>
> "Few members today know that on July 25 [< Typo?
> Should read July 15?], 1982, I [Darwin Gross] entered
> into a contract of purchase with Gail Twitchell Anderson
> for her rights, titles and interests to all published and
> unpublished written works and sound recordings of Paul
> Twitchell, as attached. By the terms of that contract,
> Gail 'assicned to the Corporation in the Care Of Darwin
> Gross the certified copyrights and any and all unpublished
> works of Paul Twitchell.' Gail imposed a vital condition to
> her transfer of this valuable property ownership on the
> Corporation."
>
> http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem1.html
>
> After looking at that account I noted two things. One,
> the sale apparently happened AFTER Harold Klemp
> became Living Eck Master in October 1981. Two, the
> contract appears (accoring to this account) to mention
> MORE THAN unpublished works (it says "for her rights,
> titles and interests to all published and unpublished
> written works and sound recordings of Paul Twitchell,
> as attached.")
>
> [I haven't located a jpg. image of that contract. I saw
> it once, and Ford Johnson's site has a link to it, but
> it did not come up. The page was blank.]
>
> Considering the date, it doesn't make a whole lot of
> sense why sale of those materials wouldn't just go to
> Eckankar Inc. I wondered why did Gail include Darwin
> Gross at all? Wouldn't responsibility fall to the new
> Living Eck Master?
>
> I searched further and found the following under a link
> entitled "First Hand Account" (Bernadine Burlin). I will
> quote excerpts that appear to pertain to this subject.
>
> Quote:
>
> One of my jobs, in addition to being Darwin's secretary,
> was to work with Peddar's manuscripts.I kept a project
> board in my office reflecting the projected printing sched-
> ules for PZ's works, as well as manuscript considerations
> from some of the initiates, with the possibility of additional
> works by the two Masters. I provided the management
> team, Board Members and the Masters with periodic up-
> dates of these projections that ran through 1984.
>
> http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
>
> In the following paragraph on that page, Bernadine writes:
>
> Quote:
>
> [....] He would take at least his secretary with him, as
> provided in his Lifetime Agreement, and possibly one or
> two others to establish a small office to work with some
> of PT's unprinted manuscripts, and the other books that
> had not yet been written by the masters. Peddar's widow
> had assigned his published and unpublished written
> materials to the Corporation with the stipulation that the
> "Certified Copyrights and any and all [of his] unpublished
> works" be "under the direction and control of Sri Darwin
> Gross to assure their originality and proper presentation..."
>
> http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
>
> A couple of paragraphs later she continues.
>
> Quote:
>
> With the help of the office manager, a couple of department
> heads and office personnel, I began gathering together and
> setting aside, items and office equipment to be taken to
> Darwin's Oregon office. [....]
>
> Two paragraphs later.
>
> Quote:
>
> The Oregon Corporation was called Dharma Aircraft Ltd. and
> at the Board Meeting in June 1983, held after the seminar in
> St. Louis, Missouri, the Minutes read: "Dharma Aircraft Ltd.
> was discussed. After it was moved by P., seconded by J.,
> and unanimously passed: RESOLVED: That Dharma Aircraft
> Ltd. be renamed [Glen Eden Press] and set up and maintained
> as a separate corporation to work with other income producing
> sources to raise funds for (corporation).... It would initially hold
> the books and copyrights and discourses. [....]
>
> http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
>
> From the preceding information it looks like there is at least
> a "possibility" some of Paul Twitchell's written works might
> eventually be located in Oregon.
>
> Two paragraphs later.
>
> Quote:
>
> "On Saturday, August 6, 1983, I was at the office to oversee
> the placement of goods on the moving van for the move to the
> Oregon office. A small office crew was there and aware of
> these activities. [....]"
>
> http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem5.html
>
> OK. So this is (apparently) a first hand account of someone
> who might know what DID go into that truck.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Why is any of this remarkable? To me it is noteworthy be-
> cause it looks like Darwin Gross was concerned about the
> presentation of Paul Twitchell's works. Not necessarily
> from the information in those quotes, but from other links
> and articles I read on the subject, too.
>
> How can you have two different people deciding on how
> the works of Paul Twitchell get "presented"? Darwin and
> Harold? Why does this prospect even enter the picture?
>
> I asked myslef: What were unpublished works in the year
> 1982 at the time for the "contract of purchase"? One book
> came to mind, but it initially didn't mean a whole lot to me.
> That book was Letters to Gail, Vol. 3.
>
> LTG 3 appears to be one book Darwin Gross objected to.
> I mean, the version published by Harold Klemp.
>
> Apparently, the 1990 version was not the first. In a letter
> from Darwin Gross to Harold Klemp (1989), Darwin writes:
>
> "Sixteen thousand copies of the original 'Letters To Gail III'
> were printed in 1983. You had these shredded ... [....]"
>
> http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/dgtfitem1.html
>
> The year of that apparent event is noteworthy (IMO) as it
> happened AFTER the "contract of purchase" in 1982 and
> it happened during the year Harold Klemp received files,
> or the "Paul Twitchell library" from Darwin Gross. I mean,
> the printing of LTG 3 (I don't know when the shredding
> took place.)
>
> Darwin Gross apparently had issues with another book:
>
> "[....] Why did Peter Skelskey buy 25-30 thousand
> copies of Paulji's spiritual adventure story 'East Of Danger'
> at the October 1982 Board meeting, in Honolulu? What
> became of these books? Where did Peter Skelskey get
> the 25-30 thousand dollars to purchase the "East Of
> Danger" books? [....]"
>
> http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/dgtfitem1.htm
>
> I don't know what was Darwin's issue there since the
> copyright date for that book appears (my version) to be
> 1978.
>
> Concerning Eckankar unpublished works, however, such
> as Letters to Gail, Vol. 3 (at least) doesn't the information
> on this thread indicate potential disagreement between
> two different leaders of Eckankar over how Paul Twitchell's
> works should be presented?
>
> I raise this question on account of possibility for revisions
> and / or editing of the Letters to Gail series having at some
> time taken place. Including any reported allegations of the
> name Kirpal Singh changing to Sudar Singh (which I have
> seen mention of).
>
> The Letters to Gail Vol.s One & Two came out during the
> leadership of Darwin Gross in the 1970s. If there were any
> name changes in that series of letters I believe they would
> have taken place when Darwin Gross was married to Gail
> Twitchell Gross. However, here's the thing. The original
> letters to Gail for Vol. 3 seem (to me) to be part of what
> Gail sold to Eckankar in 1982 - releasing all of her rights.
>
> I wonder what did the letters for Vol. 3 contain? Whether
> they showed any evidence of name changes and editing?
> If so, I suspect Harold Klemp would have learned about it
> in 1983.
>
> At any rate, did this arguing over Paul Twitchell "works",
> over the right to determine what form they take have any-
> thing to do with the split between Darwin and Harold?
>
> It just doesn't make sense why Gail would mention the
> name Darwin Gross in the sales contract the way that
> Darwin described. Why should Darwin have any control
> over Paul Twitchell writings and tapes, etc. in the year
> 1982? Especially since Harold Klemp was already the
> Living Master (NOT Darwin Gross) since October 1981?
>
> Were those copies of LTG 3 scheduled to be published
> in 1983? I've heard they were a discourse series before
> becoming a published book. I don't know when those
> were a discourse series. They weren't a part of my dis-
> course series (I've had all available discourses since
> 1987, I believe.) I'm also wondering now if all the original
> "letters to Gail" were part of the sale. I don't mean book
> or discourse forms, but the actual original letters.
>
> Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
Doug,
Thanks for those clarifications according to what
you remember / know.
1978 was the year when a manuscript was infor-
maly circulated. I believe it was David Lane's that
was finished in spring and informally circulated
in summer 1978 (according to what I've seen).
1978 was also the year for "announcement" of a
divorce between Darwin and Gail.
1978 was the year for a reported conversation
between Gail and Ann Arnold. That was in the
Fall, I believe.
It makes sense to me that Gail would sell some
things in 1979 and that Darwin Gross would plan
to step aside as early as 1980.
1979 or thereabouts is not exactly many years
before Harold Klemp became Living Eck Master.
Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp were already
talking about it the first week of March 1980.
Ford Johnson had a link to the sales contract
from 1982 - a jpg - but the page didn't load for
me. I saw it once, I believe, but have yet to re-
locate a copy of the contract. I'll check again
to see if I have a copy of it someplace.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
I remember reading an ECK World News or Mystic World article that
described Gail's sale of her ownership of the copyrights to Paul's
writings, but it happened back in 1979 or thereabouts. It was years
before Harold became the Master.
I'm assuming that is the contract that Darwin was talking about. Why
would Gail sell it again later? So, the 1982 date doesn't sound right
and maybe was referring to something else.
It made perfect sense for her to mention Darwin's name in the contract
in 1979.
Doug,
Here is the link I mentioned.
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=155
I don't know why, but the image appears no longer available. If we
could
see that document, then perhaps it would help to clarify further.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
Page search for the word "contract" here.
http://darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem1.html
Apparently there was a sale in 1982. The amount appears to
be $500.000. Unless I'm mistaken.
So, there was no sale?
How about mention of Darwin's name?
Did Darwin make all of that up in his letter to Harold about
a sale / contract and the mention of his name?
It doesn't make sense (to me) that Darwin would mention
that sale / contract in a letter to Harold if Harold didn't know
anything about it.
Etznab
Etznab
Apparently, there was another person who posted copies of the
sales contract. Bill Flavell.
Perhaps he discontinued the site where the files were located?
I checked. Even at The Way Back Machine. None of the links
appeared to work. Here is an old link to the file.
http://www.geocities.com/bill_flavell/SriDarwinGrossSriPaulTwitchellBookContractJul15.1982.jpg
Today I searched here at A.R.E. and found that Bill wrote about
this subject and made references to the files. This was back in
2003, so I'd assume some of the A.R.E. old timers have seen a
copy of that contract. I saw it too, once, when the link to the file
was working.
Here is Bill's post:
"I just saw a Rich Smith mis-statement of fact on one of the threads.
"He claimed Gail Anderson only got $50K for Paulji's writings and
sound recordings, but it was actually 500K. I've got a photoscan of
the contract (and some photoscans of a lot of other info regarding the
1983 betrayal/split) and will get it up on my web page as soon as
possible and post a link.
Bill Flavell"
First link from A.R.E. thread
Darwin Gross/Eckankar/Gail Anderson/Paul Twitchell Book
Contract (1982) [posted in May 2003] @
Was there? Or was there not a sales contract between Gail
and Eckankar in 1982 that mentioned Darwin Gross? Harold
Klemp was the Living Eck Master in 1982, & Doug suggests
it doesn't make sense for Gail to mention Darwin Gross? The
"sale" took place before Harold became LEM? Like 1979, or
thereabouts?
This is a really important bit of information, IMO, the "sales"
contract from 1982. It fits the subject of this thread too, IMO.
Perhaps there is a copy of that contract still up on the Web
someplace? I'll try to find it for the light it could shed on this
topic.
Etznab
Etznab
Rich,
Yes. objective observation.
Objective observation based on sales contract of Paul Twitchell's
works to Eckankar in 1982 (after Harold Klemp was already LEM).
I saw the sales contract in public domain years ago. I remembered
the word liability. However, I waited until finding a copy and looking
it over again before responding to your post.
Suggesting that Harold might be liable? Is that what you saw?
Those are your words, Rich. My words were in the form of asking
questions. I didn't know. In fact I am not exactly certain even now
who is liable for the works of Paul Twitchell - specifically any and
all false, or pseudo historical information written by Paul Twitchell
or Eckankar.
Eckankar is a religion now and has certain protections under the
U.S. Constitution as I understand it.
Here is an excerpt from TruthSeeker about this subject. It's from
TS 08/30/2005 - Comments on Postings by Soultraveler: Paul
Twitchell and Eckankar:
"[....] This was also one of the reasons that Paul changed his per-
spective and turned Eckankar into a religion. He was well aware of
the deceptions and fabrications in his writings. If he made Eckankar
a religion, no one could legally question the truth of what he wrote
for it would constitute religious dogma protected by the Constitution
of the United States. If it were merely a non-profit organization,
like
HCS, it would be subject to a much higher legal standard of truth. It
has none of the legal protections that the dogma and myths of relig-
ions can look to for protection. That is also why Scientology became
a religion. When you have something to hide, such as the truth
behind
your public story, there is no better protection than that provided
by
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=1431&page=63#m1426
Texts are edited and revised, yes. I wasn't raising issues about
rewording of the teachings in modern language. My interest was
the recorded history for Eck Masters and events in Paul T's life.
For example, when a person is born on a certain date that date
doesn't usually change. The years of their life as a teenager &
any travels to foreign countries don't really change. I' don't have
an issue with rewording the stories, but with changing of dates
and / or giving false history concerning dates and names. When
that is done, no matter how you spell it, this can prevent people
from learning the actual historical facts concerning the events in
question.
I'm familiar with religious dogma and how it doesn't have to be
necessarily true (including historical facts, words and names)
under the umbrella of organized religion. This is more than im-
perfect outer teachings though, IMO.
Etznab
Sean
FYI, before you ask, this was the third time this content was posted by you
... :)
Sometimes you need to wait longer than 10 minutes for a post to first
'appear' on google groups.
This time only your past post - this one appeared on google, the other two
times it didn't.
I had 3 posts the same come thru my ISP server for a.r.e. posts
cheers seanaki
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2ac80e6a-2a56-46fd...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Etznab
Sean,
There was a section with typos. The section about where on the
TS link the quote I gave appeared. I deleted the post a number
of times until I got that one section clarified.
Etznab
Rich
> "Suggesting that Harold might be liable is an objective observation."
>
> Rich,
>
> Yes. objective observation.
>
> Objective observation based on sales contract of Paul Twitchell's
> works to Eckankar in 1982 (after Harold Klemp was already LEM).
>
> I saw the sales contract in public domain years ago. I remembered
> the word liability. However, I waited until finding a copy and looking
> it over again before responding to your post.
>
> Suggesting that Harold might be liable? Is that what you saw?
>
> Those are your words, Rich. My words were in the form of asking
> questions.
Nice try, but no cigar. Trying to link this after the fact doesn't fly.
You often couch you point of view as questions. It seems you imagine that
makes some difference. Yet over the years the people who have criticized you
have seen right through those. As in this instance, it was objectively clear
from your words that you disapprove of the editing of Paul's works and that
Harold was liable(could be sued) for those changes. That had nothimg to do
with the contract.
The contract is an entirely different issue. Someone could "claim" the
rights for Paul's works and Eckankar(not Harold) would be responsible/liable
to defend against such a claim. Eckankar nor Harold could be liable for
editing, making changes, because Eckankar owns the copyrights, and thus have
the right to make changes.
Etznab
Rich,
Who are you speaking for exactly?
You take people's posts. You reword what they said
and then try and convince everybody they said what
you said they did.
I've seen this a number of times, Rich. And I've seen
you try and play your word games with just about
anybody on A.R.E. that you want to challenge. They
try to explain to you over and over in their own words
and you keep twisting those words around. I think
you need to lay off acting like gestapo and inquisitor.
I gave up responding after you try to make things into
something they are not. I'm not going for your B.S. &
it's a waste of my time to follow you around in circles.
Etznab
Etznab
If that sounded too harsh to you, go back and consider
what you just accused me of. Not only in that response
but in others recently.
Your POV is yours. And though it sometimes agrees
with others and represents a fair objective depiction of
what they said, still I think there are other times when
bias and prejudice get in the way.
I think most people corresponding through this kind of
online format are prone to miss exactly what another
person exactly means. Even to interpret the words of
another as a personal assault at times when they are
something other.
MY POV is that I don't now know who is "liable" for the
written works of Paul Twitchell. Even in spite of all the
legal opinions. Even in spite of what the contract says.
I was asking about it to dialogue about it. The thread
about Religious Expression was another facet of my
quest on this subject.
Etznab
Sean
There was a section with typos. The section about where on the
TS link the quote I gave appeared. I deleted the post a number
of times until I got that one section clarified.
Etznab
========================
Nope, no you didn;t .... 3 ie THREE separate posts were sent ... 10 minutes
between the first and last one .. the last one is the one I am repsonding to
./.. the others came thru, and one even came as a reply to ME elsewhere in
the thread and not to Rich ..
so .... just letting you know .. werid things still ocur at google ...
cheeers
Rich
> On Nov 7, 9:58 pm, "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote:
>> Etznab wrote:
>>> "Suggesting that Harold might be liable is an objective
>>> observation."
>>
>>> Rich,
>>
>>> Yes. objective observation.
>>
>>> Objective observation based on sales contract of Paul Twitchell's
>>> works to Eckankar in 1982 (after Harold Klemp was already LEM).
>>
>>> I saw the sales contract in public domain years ago. I remembered
>>> the word liability. However, I waited until finding a copy and
>>> looking it over again before responding to your post.
>>
>>> Suggesting that Harold might be liable? Is that what you saw?
>>
>>> Those are your words, Rich. My words were in the form of asking
>>> questions.
>>
>> Nice try, but no cigar. Trying to link this after the fact doesn't
>> fly.
>>
>> You often couch you point of view as questions. It seems you imagine
>> that makes some difference. Yet over the years the people who have
>> criticized you have seen right through those. As in this instance,
>> it was objectively clear from your words that you disapprove of the
>> editing of Paul's works and that Harold was liable(could be sued)
>>
>> The contract is an entirely different issue. Someone could "claim"
>> the rights for Paul's works and Eckankar(not Harold) would be
>> responsible/liable to defend against such a claim. Eckankar nor
>> Harold could be liable for editing, making changes, because Eckankar
>> owns the copyrights, and thus have the right to make changes.
No answer to the point above. Instead of admitting that the two are not
related, attack the messenger.
> Rich,
>
> Who are you speaking for exactly?
>
> You take people's posts. You reword what they said
> and then try and convince everybody they said what
> you said they did.
Other can judge for themselves. I'll make it clear as clear as I can.
Parsing statements with question marks does not change the meaning.
"I ask myself: Who is the liable party? Who is / are the people responsible
for the accuracy of those works?
Especially if changes were made to the written works at a time before Harold
Klemp became Living Eck Master &
the leader of Eckankar? Is Harold responsible? Is Harold even liable? Is
Eckankar Inc. responsible or liable?"
How could that be construed as you _not_ looking to assign blame?
To me the following quote from the same post clearly indicates that you do
not approve of:
"revisions about historical events, changing details or presenting a record
of them that didn't square with actual facts? Are such individuals liable
for the presentation of false records? Or distribution of knowingly false
history to an unsuspecting public?"
Are you now saying you _do_ approve, that there is _nothing_ wrong with
doing that, that Eckankar/Harold _should_ have edited it's publications? I
assumed the opposite in my original response. Are you trying to argue that I
was wrong about how I understood those words of yours? Please explain.
> I've seen this a number of times, Rich. And I've seen
> you try and play your word games with just about
> anybody on A.R.E. that you want to challenge. They
> try to explain to you over and over in their own words
> and you keep twisting those words around. I think
> you need to lay off acting like gestapo and inquisitor.
>
> I gave up responding after you try to make things into
> something they are not. I'm not going for your B.S. &
> it's a waste of my time to follow you around in circles.
No game on my part. But yes, I am challenging your own words. You tell us
how those words of yours could possibly indicate anything positive? Just
stick to the two quotes above. Show us any other meaning to your own words.
Often I ignore your posts but I sometimes follow your winding threads to try
and straighten out your detractor like nonsense such as this. You presumed
to know what a "proper presentation" of Eckankar should be. My response was
everything gets edited. I don't see how you can disagree, so I understand
why you give up. You don't see it in yourself? OK fine. End of issue.
Sean
Rich,
=====================
fyi Etznab,
putting words into other people's mouths was Rich's big complaint about
Leaf, TianYue, or Kent. Shoe on other foot these days .... which is fine
really, and doesn;t matter. so will leave u with it. :)
Sean
OK, let's think about that question for a moment .....
EASILY, is my answer .. but hey other might disagree, so i best be quiet
about that.
> To me the following quote from the same post clearly indicates that you do
> not approve of:
>
> "revisions about historical events, changing details or presenting a
> record of them that didn't square with actual facts? Are such individuals
> liable for the presentation of false records? Or distribution of knowingly
> false history to an unsuspecting public?"
>
STRAWMAN ALERT :)
> Are you now saying you _do_ approve, that there is _nothing_ wrong with
> doing that, that Eckankar/Harold _should_ have edited it's publications? I
> assumed the opposite in my original response. Are you trying to argue that
> I was wrong about how I understood those words of yours? Please explain.
>
It is clear from the long record that Etznab as often expressed his humble
opinion that editing of works in itself is to be expected, that there is
nothing worng in that *per se*, and is OK.
So it;s up to Rich to work out if he is *wrong* or not, or there is another
option entirely. <vbg>
>
>> I've seen this a number of times, Rich. And I've seen
>> you try and play your word games with just about
>> anybody on A.R.E. that you want to challenge. They
>> try to explain to you over and over in their own words
>> and you keep twisting those words around. I think
>> you need to lay off acting like gestapo and inquisitor.
>>
>> I gave up responding after you try to make things into
>> something they are not. I'm not going for your B.S. &
>> it's a waste of my time to follow you around in circles.
>
> No game on my part. But yes, I am challenging your own words. You tell us
> how those words of yours could possibly indicate anything positive? Just
> stick to the two quotes above. Show us any other meaning to your own
> words. Often I ignore your posts but I sometimes follow your winding
> threads to try and straighten out your detractor like nonsense such as
> this. You presumed to know what a "proper presentation" of Eckankar
> should be.
one doesn't need a degree to be able to express an opinion about what the
context of "proper presentation" could entail. Do they?
No one invited me to the funeral of free speech and freedom of thought ....
i mean would a graphic of jesus on the cross on the cover be a "proper
presentation" or am I being way too presumptious here?
> My response was everything gets edited. I don't see how you can disagree,
> so I understand why you give up. You don't see it in yourself? OK fine.
> End of issue.
>
RE : "OK fine. End of issue."
KEWL ..... <sigh>
Etznab
Easily.
Etznab
Etznab
> "Rich" <deadm...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
Wow. There is that word "easily" again.
Anybody remember that game "hot and cold"?
Where something is hidden from a person &
they have to try and find it?
How do they find it? A quest?
How about sharades? ( < wrong spelling I guess)
Where others try to figure out information held by
another party?
How do they determine the correct answer? By
asking quest-ions?
When certain actions and / or questions are pro-
hibited it can also prohibit the actual truth. I have
put myself into the position of a quest. Having to
go places and to ask certain things - not only to
myself, but to anybody else who is with me and
or on a similar quest.
Sometimes a group effort can surpass the efforts
of one individual. At other times group effort can
hinder the effort of one individual.
Some people already have their minds made up
about what is history, legend & myth. They will
not look any further. Perhaps those are not the
ones I was talking about with regard to who is
with me.
Etznab
Sean
Easily.
Etznab
======
LOL ... now that was a WOW moment, now i get what you meant on the other
reply to me, hehehehe now that's way kewl too! ;-))
Jasmyn
It got somewhat confusing what Etznab was suggesting. I thought he
meant that he thought no one had the right to change the words in
Paul's manuscripts/books at all after his death. Then I thought he
was asking if Eckankar is responsible for what he may think is false
historical information, such as changing names by Paul between his own
original manuscripts, and his published books. It's a big supposition
to presume to know another man's experiences and then his thinking
about them when it came time for publication of his books.
I read this quote recently which reminded me of this and other similar
threads in here:
From CLOAK OF CONSCIOUSNESS, page 120, by Harold Klemp:
People on a spiritual path often become frozen in time. In ECK, some
people have a fixation for past Masters such as Rebazar Tarzs or Paul
Twitchell. But what makes ECK a living path is that there is a
present Living ECK Master who works as both the Outer and the Inner
Master.
Since 1971, Paul has had another mission on the inner planes. It
challenges him in a greater way than ever before, because this is the
nature of the missions of those who become Co-workers with God. Every
so often he gives a talk at a function on the inner planes, but he no
longer has to worry about the logistics of the place or how many
chairs are going to be available. That's somebody else's job now.
It's common to think of heaven as a very mysterious place where people
walk around in robes. Outmoded places like that do exist on the other
planes, but it's not a heaven that you would understand or like.
You'd be more comfortable in a heaven where you could do pretty much
the same things you're doing here, but with more freedom and fewer
limitations.
The best hotels and the most luxurious accommodations on earth seem
like dark huts compared to the things you see on the inner planes.
The worlds of God are light and spacious, and the joy that Soul
experiences there is beyond human understanding. This is what Soul is
trying to get to, and it comes through the spiritual exercises.
One night on the inner planes, Paul gave a talk in a huge hall before
an audience of thousands. He corrected some of the stories that other
speakers had told about his life. They didn't even realize they were
working from memories of years ago when they were in another state of
consciousness. Some of the people in the audience didn't quite
understand what he was talking about, because many of the incidents
had to do with his mission from another time.
He told a few stories of his own, but mostly he talked about the
importance of the spiritual exercises. When he was finished, he
looked over at me, raised his hand in greeting, and then left.
Off to one side of the hall was an alcove. A few Higher Initiates sat
around a desk sifting through old letters and articles that Paul had
written years ago. They saw that Paul addressed a wide range of
subjects, starting at the introductory level with such topics as
spiritualism and the occult. These topics were of interest to the
people of the time. As they compared the past with the present, they
clearly saw the difference.
The people of today are no longer coming to the path of ECK only from
the occult fields. This is why the introductory teachings of ECK are
different now. They deal more with everyday living.
The past is fine; certain people need a historical foundation. But
the historical aspect is not essential to any Soul on the path to
God. All that is really needed is a linkup, or connection, with the
Light and Sound of God. Simply that and nothing more. Anything else
is merely form, including even the outer appearance of the Living ECK
Master.
The purpose of this world of appearances and illusion is to test us
and strengthen us so that we can find the combination to the safe, the
way into the inner worlds where the Sound and Light of God are purer
and higher than anything we can know here. And in so doing, Soul is
uplifted and purified, and one day becomes a fit Co-worker with the
SUGMAD.
Ken
Some of those who's mind's are already made up may know, based on their
own experience, that you are asking questions that will not lead to
beneficial knowledge. But I don't see how you can be expected to accept
that just based on the words of another. I do believe one has to cross
the line to know where it's at.
Even so, you should expect all kinds of feedback. When you are
threatening to cross one of those lines on a path that others believe
will lead to no good end, the responses might even seem to be negative.
That's the nature of the thing.
--
Ken
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
news:fpWdnQ8QKNm3_mXX...@supernews.com...
Ken,
I think I hear correctly what you are saying / suggetsing here, and I feel
that it is well intentioned, and yes things like "the responses might even
seem to be negative." are true.
To me thougbn there is the one important critical point here that your
response above overlooks... is Rich's observations/beliefs/reactions valid
for the object of his scorn and judgments? IOW is what Rich suggesting
ACTUALLY IN REALITY True or False.
If it is false, then your comments in more ways than one are thereby also
irrelevant except as a generality or a truism for people to at least be
aware of, knowing that the e exception proves the rule in some cases, and in
others the exception means it is outside the rule being applied.
Looking at your comments .... Kirpal Singh took this approach with Paul
Twitchell, as did Kirpal's students and successors.
Harold took this approach with Ford as did ECKists who stayed on Harold's
side of the line. Harold took this approach with Darwin too.
Eckists and HI's and RESA's and goodness knows how many others took this
approach with Doug Marman and his *questions* about whether or not did Paul
Plagiarise and use specific written texts [ not super photpgragphic memory
or astral libraries ] for the contents in his Eckankar books, discourses and
talks from elsewhere, and what has occured about this since 1971.
IOW a line can be drawn between any two points, and as such the physical
universe is filled to the brim with lines, curves and spirals. It then
becomes an issue about who's lines are made out to be more important and
special, and that in itself is a judgement. ;-)
The same as choosing to write this line -- "When you are threatening to
cross ...." is a judgement, about an intention, about a motivation, and
about anothers unexpressed presumptive beliefs that are only assumptions in
your head, be you correct or not is irrelevant, however it is not written
with any real clarity nor personal responsibility for your own position and
judgment or SOC.
That could have been written another way such as ......... " From my SOC and
my POV, when I look at what you write it leads ME to think and believe that
it is very similar to other images I have in MY memory of others who
threatened and then did cross the Line that I believe is a very important
line NOT to be crossed, or else. It is not so much that you are threatening
to cross the line and any effect it may have on you yourself, because really
hey I don;t care what other people choose to believe for that is THEIR
business entirely, but it is BE-CAUSE situations and images like this feel
threatening to me be-cause it challenges my own deep belief that both the
line crossing and even the mere threat of thinking it is possible without
severe harm to Soul is threatening to ME and my existing SOC and POV, and I
have no interest in suspending my beliefs and re-examining them again. "
"So I am wondering .... are you contemplating the possibility of crossing
this imaginary line i have in my head because only you could really know?"
And then you'd probably find a quote from Doug's book and posted it to Rich
for a heads up ... to stop him from spinning off into never never land just
because someone was using a link to a website which had a file he wanted to
share with others and was under discussion on this group...
I would humbly suggest you go back and re-read the thread here. Etznab is
the one with the accurate memory recall here. Doug has admitted his memory
was incorrect and that Etznab is right. I was never aware of this sale in
1982, nor the existence of the document. Or have completely forgotten about
it .. or if it has a been topic here when I was here, I wasn't involved or
looked at anything about this subject.
So Etznab, this is the reality ok, goes to fidn the document and it;s
missing in several places and he never saved it or copied it .. so he goes
searching around his other nest eggs and finds a COPY on sharons
eckankartruth website, so he posts the Link.
But people have to Join the group to view the document - THIS IS NORMAL - HU
CHAT DOES THE EXACT SAME THING FOR CHRISTS SAKE --
But our beloved Sri Rich is hurt and offended because he is not alowed
there - a completely FALSE belief which is a fantasy in Rich's own head that
he just made up out of THIN AIR - and then along comes Sri Ken to add his 2
cents worth.
Great!
Within your shared SOC and POVs and Imaginings about *mythical lines not to
be crossed* you have turned an enquiry by Etznab about a historical event
that occurred in 1982, which was publicly known when it occurred but mostly
forgotten now, an event about which previous confidential documents were
subsequently made public but still are little known, and a possible mature
discussion about what the contents might mean at the time, or now, into yet
another ATTACK UPON ETZNAB's INTEGRITY and MOTIVATIONS and SOC based upon
THIN AIR and the use of a URL to a Source Historical Document file!!!
And yet you guys are claiming that Etznab is asking questions that will not
lead to
beneficial knowledge????
saying "When you are threatening to cross one of those lines on a path that
others believe will lead to no good end"
For asking obvious open-ended questions about an event in 1982, and who is
responsible for the published works of Paul twitchell and Eckankar?
Look would you like to hear my opinion based upon my OWN expereince, and my
intelligence and my inner guidance and my knowledge and my judgement and my
sources and my reasoning and my common sense within known Life realities and
patterns?
By the time Paul started Eckankar in 1965 he had a number of book sized
manuscripts typed up already and completed or 90% plus completed .... This
is a FACT .. ok? can we agree on this general truth at least?
Paul before he started Eckankar was publishing and distributing Monthly
Discourses, the contents of which were entirely based upon his PRE-existing
Manuscripts plus some editing before Typing Uisng the Gestetner Copier and
later maybe Xerox coping too for Printing and then posting out.
Paul also used this material to write his Magazine Articles, and he also
serialised his Manuscripts plus some editing in Spiritual Journals with
advertisements for his Monthly Discourses.
WE also know that Paul would do *readings* and charge people to give
spiritual counselling, not unlike Cayce, or a Numerologist like Michael
Wallace today.
None of the above is a criticism ... or suggesting anything *wrong* or bad
above at all , it is simply a summary report of a small slice of what
actually happened historically, without ANY judgment .
Good History is usally non-judgemental, but third party objective and tries
to look at things in the Timje they occurred, and the social practices of
the day. Non-judgmental like science is .... eg dinosaurs went extinct due
to evolution, but science doesn't say that that was a good or bad thing,
only that it happened, and when known who or why it happened, That's HISTORY
.... LIKE IT OR NOT.
And there are alwasy gaps in History, becasue everything cannot be known,
and over time new knowledge comes and so our beliefs are changed from what
we "believed" about the past before. Extreme creationists still deny the
truth of Fossills and carbon dating Science, doesn't mean they are right
because they don't want to believe it.
back to Paul .... he is known as the Master Compiler who read everything
known to man about spirituality and psychology, he was an prolific, some
could say even a obsessive-compulsive reader and writer on the subject, and
he was a published author and journalist and freelance PR/Media Writer &
Editor for others.
OK so my main notion is this ___
By the time Paul actually started Eckankar he had many complete manuscripts
at hand which became Monthly Discourses and Published Books under the banner
of the organisation of Eckankar ... that "entity" has chnaged form since
1965 but it is essentially the same Teaching that Paul Twitchell Created out
of his own self, decisions and actions.... and we are all clear that paul
did indeed himself and him alone CREATE the physical entity known as
Eckankar today - right?
This is only from my memeory, so a detail or two could be out , but
basically by 1965 clicked around Paul had ready to go the following core
works at LEAST that we know of, becasue we still do NOT know what actually
represents *the unpublished works of Paul Twitchell* as they are under lock
and key in the Eckankar version of the Vatican Vaults. One would probably
need a Court Order these days to get to see them, imho. :)
a.. Twitchell, Paul (1967) The Tiger's Fang, Illuminated Way Press, ISBN
0-914766-17-1
b.. Twitchell, Paul (1988) Dialogues with the Master, Illuminated Way
Publishing, Inc.; ISBN 0-914766-78-3
c.. Twitchell, Paul (1969) Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds, Forward by
Brad Steiger. Illuminated Way Press, ISBN 1-57043-154-X
d.. Twitchell, Paul (1971) Herbs: The Magic Healers, Eckankar, Library of
Congress Catalog Number: 86-80814
e.. Twitchell, Paul (1972) The Eck-Vidya Ancient Science of Prophecy, ISBN
1-57043-030-6
f.. Twitchell, Paul (1999) Stranger by the River, Eckankar ISBN
1-57043-136-1
g.. Twitchell, Paul (1988) Far Country, Illuminated Way Pub., ISBN
0-914766-91-0
h.. Twitchell, Paul (1998) Sharyat Ki-Sugmad Book I, Eckankar, ISBN
1-57043-048-9
i.. Twitchell, Paul (1998) The Spiritual Notebook, Eckankar, 1998, ISBN
1-57043-037-3
j.. Twitchell, Paul (1999) The Flute of God, Eckankar; ISBN 1-57043-032-2
k.. Twitchell, Paul (1999) Sharyat Ki-Sugmad Book II, Eckankar, ISBN
1-57043-049-7
Again no criticism is meant, and no judgment being made.
Since Paul translated the LTG series was also published in book form, prior
to being used as Monthly Discourses. BTW all of Paul's stuff is done in 12
chapters. He claimed this was because of spiritual benefit or something.
That doesn't change the fact that a year has 12 months, and a discourse
series therefore lasts a year.
I think it is safe to suggest that Paul began writing all the above
manuscripts probably at or around 1950. There is not much evidence of
spiritually motivated writings by Paul prior to WW2 .. [ is there? if so was
it a one off or the major subject of his wrting? ]
Aren't they ok questions to ask or ponder about??? I think so ... but they
are JUST questions, they are NOT judgements at all. Nor are they lines
either. ;-)
It is clear that Paul had a habit of writing out his "thinking" which
inclduded important points [ to him ] out of books he was readign at the
time, eg path of the Masters. Paul would get a 100 books and then write out
the things that rang true to him .. for his OWN benefit. This is how he
learnt and remembered things .. Paul was comparing different things to each
other and learning enormous amounts about the Mind and other cultrues
religions, teachings teachers lives, alwasy on the llok out for the
Spiritually Esoteric stuff ... that ended up tending towards anything that
spoke about teh Light and Sound, and Out of body- bi location - astral and
soul travel inner expereinces no matter who the author was .
If Paul Twitchell did NOT do this ... then he would not be referred to as
the Master Compiler now would he?
It is clear that Paul had himself had many inner, soul travel, o-o-b
experiences, and that he was not only well read but also personal
experienced at it, and felt comfortable with it.
he was of course alwasy learning new things by experience or listening to
others such as Kirpal Singhji., or a report by someone in a book.
THIS is what paul T did by all reports ... and then along came Gail during
which time he became more focused and decided to try to teach what he knew
and could do to others.
again no criticisms here, nor judgements, just the objective history as I
see it from MY memory .....
My # main point here?
Rich has cresated the Myth without any evidence to support it that it is
highly unlikely that even 2% of what Paul wrote under the Eckankar banner
could be considered plagiarism. I say a myth because this "belief" this
"supposition" this computer model was basically created out of thin air on
a calculator using un-representeative data sources.
My personal opinion today is and it can chnage anythime when MORE little
known or unknown information or data becomes available is that it would be
closer to the as yet unknown truth to say that 98% of that contained in the
above list was Plagiarised from written works extant before 1963/64, and
that probably 2% of what paul actually Published was his own written work.
But Paul added a lot more than simply a 2% or any % ..... for what paul
added what his choices of what he originally typed out in his manuscripts,
how he changed what he had read, how he later chnaged what he wrote himself,
the order in which he placed this text, the compilations of what he included
in this manuscript, but not in this one .... how he mixed things up, and how
he inserted his own direct personal experiences and his OWN beliefs of what
is or isn't to the best of his ability in the final work.
What final work? Paul was forever changing how he wrote things and what
words he selected even in his daily speech.
Again , no judgements here at all, nor opinion as to right or wrong, but
that this is what the historical evidence is actually suggesting to me
todau. I did not always think this could be possible, but today I do.
What the real truth, what the whole truth is, as to the actual % is unknown
and will remain so, but the more years that go by, the higher the known %
will increase.
Now I do not base the above upon a nest of vipers hanging out in some dark
anti-eckankar den, becasue I just do NOT buy into this they are doing the
Kal work or are evil weeds infesting the garden of ECK. Soul = Soul, or it
doesn't. I'm not into such BS judgements anymore, just ebcasue someone
points out that paul plagiarised a lot, and that they do not belioeve Harold
is a master at all, or that whole teaching is a fake.
personally, it doesn't bother me, becasue everyone has their opinions about
such things and are entitled to do so without being ridiculed endlessly for
them.
So, what I see form my SOC and my POV is that here we have Etznab here
documenting as accurately as he can hard facts and evidence and trying to
find source historical documents to work out what did happen regarding
paul's written works Pre-1965, what happened from 1965 to 1971, what
happened from 1971 to 1983, and what has happened from 1983 to 2009.
Because thru each of these separate time stages many things did change. This
is what objective historians do they record events and changes, and document
history in it;s time and place if at all possible.
To twist such things into something entirely different out of the fabric of
one's own imagination and soc and beliefs ... is well silly, IMO.
When what was unknown becomes known, when what was little known becomes
widely known, then the general view of history changes .. people's beliefs
about the history changes, and people's beliefs about the present changes.
THAT is what is natural, and to be expected. That is what is sane and
rational and not self-deluded. Whether or not someone accepts the teachigns
of Eckankar or not is irrelevant and questions relating to such a history is
simply that - QUESTIONS
THAT is the Reality here .. this is what no one can control, and anyone who
does try is just deluding themselves attempting the impossible, and not
helping anyone else along The Way.
Questions that help to clarify what is known now, and what is actually not
known, are simply that.
Etznab imho does not go around telling other what they should think - he
does not draw imaginary lines ion the sand and nor does he threaten to do
anything. He's just ebign an Historian to the best iof his ability because
that's what he desires to do with his life.
SO ..........
May I ask a straight question and get a straight answer to it? ... do you
really belive that if someone was to leave Sri Harold's Eckankar as a
member, preferring to follow some other path is going to burn in the astral
hells and be banned from reconnecting with the Mahanta Consciousness for
thousands of lifetimes [ as it is written in the Shariyat? ]
Is this what it's all about this concern about a line?
Or is it something else that you believe is this line not to be crossed?
Actually, what are you really talking about, please drop the innuendo and
the imagary say what you really mean. If possible.
I'm really slow some days. :)
Etznab
I kinda lost the who is responding to who on this thread,
so I'm just gonna respond to the whole group.
What I would like to determine is the actual and factual
history for Paul Twitchell and his relationship for one he
called Rebazar Tarzs. Also, the same for Sudar Singh.
Dates when Paul reportedly met those individuals does
not, IMO, appear to add up.
Now I know Paul has made up things before, and Harold
Klemp has mentioned that Paul twisted facts about his
life. It is not crossing the line to be skeptical about Paul
Twitchell's stories for Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar Singh.
And when names are changed, when dates are changed
in Paul Twitchell's writings, even by others besides Paul,
it also is not crossing the line to follow the evolution and
changes over time.
Etznab
Sean
"Sean" <he...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4af8bc32$0$6093$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
in the previous post I forgot to mentioned part of my opinion is based upon
what Sri Harold, Darwin, Doug Marman, Patti simpson, and many mnay otjher
have "reported" about Paul, as well as David Lane's proven source documents
and letters and statements, plus the material Ford found, and especially the
extra material Doug found after he finished here and the Dialogues webite
but before he published the Whole Truth book.
The rest is sort of 1+1 to me ... and my own feelings and insights/beliefs
etc.
a little more below btw
The above list is not definitive .. there were various versions of these
titles published at different times, plus many more titles that were written
by Paul, about Eckankar and spirituality in general including his Cliff
Hanger days, and other types of writings. The Eckynari comes to mind the
dreams book
Basically part of the objective history about Paul's writings is this :
Letters to Gail series, I, II, and III is the only eck teachings books
written by paul that were *first* published after his death in 1971 [
besides those listed above already ].
Only the Shariyat books and 3 others by Paul are still being promoted on the
eckankar website:
they are The Tiger's Fang, Ecknakar key to secret worlds, and Stranger by
the River.
All the others by Paul have been removed from sale and print runs stopped
permanently. { ?? i think this is the case at least ]
Paul's writing s that haven't been pubklished in book form include
Discourses written by him and then edited by either darwin and Harold , I
don;t know how many of these there have been. But eventually these too
stopped as harold's discourses took over.
I do not recall when the last written Discourse seriies was released.
Again, none of the above is a criticism or judgement, but a simple report of
the facts as they are, ok. No innuendo at all here. This is not about *why*
but simply about *what is*.
OK? Good, so relax. :)
The highest selling books with the greatest impact that were published by
paul were I belive the following from the above list:
Dialogues with the Master
The Spiritual Notebook
The Tiger's Fang
Far Country
Stranger by the River
The Flute of God
Sharyat Ki-Sugmad Books
Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds
Paul's book The Key to ECKANKAR [?] is also supposed to be a good one too
but I am unsure about this. These are the main books which REFLECT best Paul
being established as a valid/genuine/knowledgeable teacher, and Eckankar as
a Teaching.
Now since 1971 I have no idea how many books and discourses and other things
Eckankar has published but it is an enormous output over 38 years.
I cannot think of one book written since then that comes anywhere near the
style, subject matter, content, or focus of the above books by Paul.
All the above books almost entirely written and complete manuscripts before
about 1963/64.
The current masters style and focus is different. More parables and things
like this, analogies and stories about personal experiences by chelas.
Again not saying anything, or judgeing or emphasisng anything here. Except
the significant gradual changes and differences from 1965-71 to the 80-90's,
and to now.
These changes and the timing of them as well as events like darwin leaving
are simple historical records .. and it is these that Etznab is looking.
It's not about anyone's spiritual beliefs but about writings, and teachings
and ideas, and the changes that always occur over time.
People can all make their own choices day to day about anything and
everything. But the history of paul starting Eckankar is an valid subject
for enquiry too.
It's hard to view history when a lot of it is unknown ... it;s important to
be careful and not fill in too many unknowns with "assumptions" or *guesses*
or *un-investigated beliefs*
I am actualy certain that the above ideas would be found in our ECK
teachings books more than once, but put in a sluightly different way and
context perhaps. ;-))
cheers sean
Ken
> "Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
> news:fpWdnQ8QKNm3_mXX...@supernews.com...
>>>
Who am I to say? Or you for that matter. Rich has his own opinions.
No, not so much. I have not attacked Etznab nor called in to question
his integrity.
>
> And yet you guys are claiming that Etznab is asking questions that
> will not lead to beneficial knowledge????
I am not responsible for what anyone else writes so there are no "you
guys".
It's very simple. If you will drop your preconceptions that I am
somehow in opposition to Etznab, it should come to you.
In my own life I have never taken anyone else's word for where the lines
are located that I should not cross. As I said to Etznab, I don't see
how he can be expected to accept anyone else's word for what is, without
verification through his own direct personal experience.
I suspect Etznab can deal with the heat, if any is forthcoming in
response to what he writes. If you decide that he can not, I guess you
can always ride in on a white horse to defend him if you are so
inclined. That's up to you.
--
Ken
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
OK, I'll giddy up elsewhere, no worries ken - come on, hi ho Silver! :)
I'll double or triple check the 'opposition quotient' i may have missed
something, or jumped to conclusions and got it completely wrong. You should
know, so yeah, I'll check in the meantime feel free to relax. thx sean :)
PS you have an odd way of answering a straight question though, which is
fine of course of course.
Etznab
>
> read more »
Ken,
What's the heat you talk about?
Is someone trying to make chicken soup?
Etznab :)