Researching Eckankar and the issue of Objectivity
David Lane
crew. However, I must admit that I was bit surprised that he has not
read my postings on Eckankar "too closely" because he questions my
objectivity.
The central point to all of this, of course, is to do exactly that:
question my objectivity by testing whether or not my observations
hold water. And one can do this by researching the material
directly. Get a copy of With a Great Master in India and The Path of
the Masters and compare them with The Far Country. Then you can see
for yourself (divorced from my nuanced opinions) whether or not
Eckankar has plagiarized material. Get copies of the original
magazines that Paul Twitchell wrote for before Eckankar and then
compare them with his later redacted versions. Write to Rajinder
Singh in Delhi and ask him for copies of the purported
correspondence between Twitchell and Kirpal Singh. Or, better yet,
go to Delhi, India personally and review them for hours.
Then you will not only be convinced, but you will see that there are
certain facts which I relate about Eckankar which hold up,
regardless of my questioned objectivity.
Concerning the two issues you raise: 1) Gail Atkinson claiming that
Eckankar is a fraud (I was quoting Ann Arnold, who had a
conversation with Gail in the Fall of 1978 about Eckankar over a
dinner. Gail, I should add, was dating Ann's father at the time. Ann
and I had been friends since high school. Gail told
Ann it was a fraud and that she no longer believed in it. Please
keep in mind that Ann came personally to me with the quote and her
boyfriend, John Hall, confirmed the same) and 2) Eckankar was started for economic reasons.
All you have to do is write Gail yourself and then read how Eckankar
was started as a money making organization. I didn't start it that
way; Twitchell did, only later to switch it for tax reasons.
Moreover, you should check my sources and research the whole thing
for yourself. But if you are unwilling to look closely at my claims,
then you will simply gloss over some fairly startling revelations:
cover-up, plagiarism, and lying.
To be sure, my opinions matter little. But all I ask is that you do
the necessary research yourself. Quite frankly, I have left out a
lot of stuff concerning Twitchell and the like because I felt it was
much too personal.
BTW: most of my early research was supplanted by two key sources:
Louis Bluth, former President of Eckankar; and Ed Pecen, Twitchell's
one-time bodyguard. Both of them, plus hordes of other inside
Eckankar
members, verified much of what I have written.
But look at the documents for yourself.
Keep up the good work and I look forward to any other observations
you may have.
--
----
dl...@weber.ucsd.edu
email for PGP Public Key
Mark Summers
DL> From: dl...@weber.ucsd.edu (David Lane) Organization: University of
DL> California, San Diego Date: 10 May 1994 00:01:39 GMT
DL>
DL> Moreover, you should check my sources and research the whole thing for
DL> yourself. But if you are unwilling to look closely at my claims, then
DL> you will simply gloss over some fairly startling revelations:
DL> cover-up, plagiarism, and lying.
DL>
DL> To be sure, my opinions matter little. But all I ask is that you do
DL> the necessary research yourself. Quite frankly, I have left out a lot
DL> of stuff concerning Twitchell and the like because I felt it was much
DL> too personal.
I must admit the issue of plagiarism is a tough one to deal with - one that I
have not resolved personally. It is a matter of concern. It would be nice if
Paul was around to shed some light on the issue. But he's not, so the matter
must be resolved on an individual basis. From the accounts of people who have
actually met Paul, he emanated a lot of love and they felt that he was truely a
God-man. Yes, there are those that met him that did not feel this way. I
seriously doubt that that any guru who passes what I have referred to as your
"litmus test" will be recognized as such by everyone who comes in contact with
him/her. If Paul was a God-man and if he did plagiarize, it appears there is a
contradiction. I feel this issue merits a deeper discussion than simply
dismissing it by stating if he plagiarized, then he was not a God-man. Perhaps
someone else in Ekankar can share some more thoughts on this.
As for Gail, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to contact her to ask
her feelings on the organization of Eckankar today as you suggested. I
wouldn't know how anyway. Except for the rumors I've heard, I do not know what
happened between her and Darwin. Nor do I know how this would affect her
opinion.
I still don't understand your claim that Eckankar was started for economic
reasons. Yes, the organization collected money. Yes, it became tax-exempt
just as any religious organization would. It is not my understanding that Paul
translated a wealthy man. I was under the impression that Paul started a
vitamin selling venture to provide for Gail financially after he translated.
Perhaps what I heard was not accurate.
I do not have the time or the resources to travel to India to check out the
papers or sources as you suggested. Not all of us have that luxury.
Sri Harold Klemp is the leader of Eckankar today. By the accounts of many who
have come in contact with him, he is truely a God-man. He will do what he
feels is right to protect the organization of Eckankar. As a paying member, I
would expect this. A point that I don't think you will ever understand is that
it is the inner master, not the outer master, that is of primary concern to an
Eckist. The experiences on the inner planes are real, regardless of the
psychological babble I've heard.
K. Paul Johnson once stated in this forum that you deserved respect because of
your scholarly work on Eckankar. I disagree. But you have earned my respect
for addressing the points I made in the manner in which you did. I hope that
you will continue to share some of your thoughts in this forum from time to
time. And I will read your "canned" postings more closely in the future.
As I have stated in another posting, the opinions I have expressed are solely
my own.
Mark
eric
MS>I must admit the issue of plagiarism is a tough one to deal with - one
MS>that I have not resolved personally. It is a matter of concern. It
MS>would be nice if Paul was around to shed some light on the issue. But
MS>he's not, so the matter must be resolved on an individual basis.
I agree. No amount of slamming the teachings would drive me away if I
make up my mind to stick with it. I talked with one of the HI's here
several months ago about Paul's plagerism. She said that "if Paul made it
up, he did a wonderful job and I love him for it." That pretty much ended
that discussion - still no answers at that time. I have to admit, that
discussion took place before I read any of Lane's or Johnson's stuff. The
newsgroup is a great place for me to ask questions. That way I don't have
to look any of you eye-to-eye. Expecially if you get pissed at me for
asking.
MS>If Paul was a God-man and if he did plagiarize, it appears there is a
MS>contradiction. I feel this issue merits a deeper discussion than simply
MS>dismissing it by stating if he plagiarized, then he was not a God-man.
MS>Perhaps someone else in Ekankar can share some more thoughts on this.
I may have said this before, but for the purposes of this reply, I'll say
it again. I could almost overlook the plagerism. It would be real easy
for me to say that Paul had a lot of work to do in a short amount of time,
so he just "borrowed" the best writings he could. Having compared Julian
Johnson's work side by side with Paul's books, Paul even copied the
spelling errors - verbatim. Anyway, enough of that. The point that was
hard for me to accept was the Orion Magazine articles. I finally got
a copy of one of them (thanks Brad). The article almost follows the book
'The Flute of God' to the letter, with one BIG exception. The names
of the REAL (actually existed or exists on the physical world) masters were
changed to those of the lovable ECK Viaragi masters. Now that bugs me. Why
did Paul do that?
MS>As for Gail, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to contact her
MS>to ask her feelings on the organization of Eckankar today as you
MS>suggested. I wouldn't know how anyway.
Odds are, she may not want to jeopardize losing any royalties she may be
getting from the "Corporation." Then again, she may have never "gotten"
what Paul was trying to teach her. In some accounts that I've read, she's
the one that got Paul to start Eckankar in the first place.
MS>Yes, it became tax-exempt just as any religious organization would.
I think that happened long after Paul "translated."
MS>I do not have the time or the resources to travel to India to check out the
MS>papers or sources as you suggested. Not all of us have that luxury.
I sure that if you were to write a letter and send some $$$, someone
over there will send a copy.
-eric
Jeff Hayes
_]
_]I still don't understand your claim that Eckankar was started for economic
_]reasons. Yes, the organization collected money. Yes, it became tax-exempt
_]just as any religious organization would.
_]It is not my understanding that Paul
_]translated a wealthy man. I was under the impression that Paul started a
_]vitamin selling venture to provide for Gail financially after he translated.
_]Perhaps what I heard was not accurate.
No it was not accurate. The vitamin selling scam was a pyramid
selling org like any other. The focus was on recruiting more
members, not on selling the 'vitamins'. It was actually a
nutritional program, similar to what you see in the body building
mag's, but emphasising good health rather than massive muscles.
I know this first hand because in the days of distant youth I was
a member of the pyramid ... i forget the name of the org now...
hummm Vita-somthing? Oh well. I have since learned the First
Dictum of Selling: Never Buy Inventory. And the product was
nothing special - I used it for a while and experienced nothing
special.
The last word that I can drop here is that it seems to have been
Gail's idea from the start. I was not ever so high in the org as
to get details, but nothing in the literature mentioned Eck,
Darwin, Paul. What I was told by those above me in the food chain
was that Gail was doing this to improve the health of those that
needed it.
I took that with a grain of salt even then.
_]
_]Sri Harold Klemp is the leader of Eckankar today. By the accounts of many who
_]have come in contact with him, he is truely a God-man. He will do what he
_]feels is right to protect the organization of Eckankar.
What would the org need protection from? Surely the Sound and
Light are the ultimate in public domain? The books are all
publicly sold, although clearly there is a case to be made that
Eckankar should be paying royalties for material copied...
The discourses could be held as needing protection as they are
only supposed to be available to paying members. But on the other
hand there is nothing in any discourse that is not derived from
another source, nor is there anything that is dangerous to read.
I have read all of them and never found anything of dire nature,
though I did occasionally see a complex truth stated in a better
than average way. Which was what made reading the discourses
worthwhile.
So does Eck need protection from libel or slander? I dont see how.
Surely an org as spiritually powerful as Eck needs no mundane
protection when it has Karma and its representative can creatively
channel the inner power into protections? Any attacks from one
driven by Kal would be deflected and rebound upon the sender?
etc. etc.
I am being sarcastic, which is not polite in a polite discussion,
but the absurdity of a spiritual org needing mundane protection
lept right out into the electrons before I could stop it.
You really have to ask, What is being protected here? If the
answer is 'someone's income' then you have a mundane concern of
someone rooted in the mundane. Not a lot of room for Spirit in
being worried that your org's founder lied, threatened, covered up
and stole.
If Harold were able to publish a statement of Eck's true origins,
confess all in other words, there would still be room for Eck's
teachings. The system Eck derives from is as valid as any other,
the principles of Eck are valid spiritual ones for the most part.
Harold could re-found Eck based on what we know about it now. It
could still be a valid path for spiritual growth.
-]I would expect this. A point that I don't think you will ever understand
-] is that
_]it is the inner master, not the outer master, that is of primary concern to an
_]Eckist.
Really? The help I always needed was on the outer. I have had
OOB experiences but never while contemplating. Eck has presented
me with lots of good information about spirit and the inner, but
it was of little value in connecting me to the Sound and Light. I
have been able to manage some interesting things on my own - but
Eck has not been a big part of the growth.
_]
_]K. Paul Johnson once stated in this forum that you deserved respect because of
_]your scholarly work on Eckankar. I disagree.
You dont think that D. Lane's work is worth respect?
Or that it is scolarly?
You can question his research, his conclusions and his
motives. That is anyone's privilige when presented with 'facts'
by another. But Mr. Lane has put forth a large effort to
bring what he clearly believes to be an important message
to the attention of those involved in Eckankar. That is certainly
worth respect, even if you dislike what the effort was made for.
But you have earned my respect
I know you went on to say this about how Mr. Lane responded but
consider. In the net information is usually 90% chaff. I have very
much appreciated Mr. Lane's posts as belonging to the 10% that
forms the reason that I have stayed on this newgroup. His
contribution is valuable.
--
___. .
/| /| jeff hayes Northern Telecom _ __ ./|_
|\|/ | jjh...@bnr.ca Bramalea Lab | |/_ \ / _|
| | | (esn) 333-3894 | | | |_| |_
\|_/ (fax) 333-3083 Brampton Ontario Canada |_| \_/ \_/
Gunnar
>It would be nice if
>Paul was around to shed some light on the issue. But he's not, so the matter
>must be resolved on an individual basis.
False conclusion. There's evidence independent of subjective sentiment.
We don't need Paul to find out the important points about him.
>From the accounts of people who have actually met Paul, he emanated a
>lot of love and they felt that he was truely a God-man.
From people who were VERY VERY vlose to him, we know he was a fraud.
You can deem yourself happy not to have heard some of the more
unnerving facts about him which Lane wants to keep out of the
group out of courtesy.
>As for Gail, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to contact
>her to ask her feelings on the organization of Eckankar today as you
>suggested.
Please go ahead and ask Mr. Lane for help on that. I'd be VERY
interested in hearing of the results if you went for an exploration
for us!
Gunnar
Etznab
Etznab
[...]
There is another problem with what David says here. David makes a public statement about Gail's opinion of ECKANKAR based on a third hand comment that she apparently made in private. If Gail wanted to make such a public statement, she should be allowed to do so on her own, or at least with her permission. David, and others, have certainly invited her to do so numerous times. She has publicly remained silent on the matter.
I don't think it is at all proper for anyone to make such a public statement for another person without their permission, especially based on hearsay stories. No matter how Gail may feel about ECKANKAR is okay with me, and most ECKists. Personally, I have always liked Gail, and have a lot of respect for her. But putting a public statement into her mouth without her permission seems completely unfair to me. [... .]
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Ten.htm
About four years later on an a.r.e. thread Doug writes, in part:
"My feeling is that I will wait to hear Gail's story directly from her, and not
those who would try to speak for her. If she chooses to remain silent on the
subject, as she appears to be doing, then I respect her for that as well and
consider that to be her statement on the matter."
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/%22Ann$20Arnold%22$20%22Doug$20Marman%22/alt.religion.eckankar/CVraesS5O-o/kde14X7lohAJ
Apparently it looks like Gail was not making "public statements", but rather keeping silent on the matter (according to Doug).
Since Doug's 2007 book is largely a rewrite of his 2000 book it should not be hard to locate where the name Ann Arnold might appear, or at least some reference to Gail's alleged "private" (not public) admissions. Chapter 10 in both books basically begins the same way. The 5th paragraph on p. 405 of The Whole Truth (2007) and the subsequent 2 paragraphs appear to touch on the subject of "Gail's opinion of Eckankar". The last part of paragraph 6 reading "[...] That silence, to me, is her statement."
It looks to me, then, like Gail wasn't making "public statements" - according to Doug - but rather choosing to remain silent; all the way up until 2007, at least. I remember a written comment by Gail about Doug's 2007 book that was posted on Doug's site a number of years back. I think it's in the public domain.
Quoting ...
"I was very elated to read your book The Whole Truth. I thought, finally, someone got the whole thing right. Eckankar was Paul's way of life and the way he lived. I loved Paul very much. I believed in him. I embraced everything he did. It was my life too. To my knowledge I have never said anything against Paul or Eckankar. I'm not sure where people come up with this nonsense. The point now is, Doug, you are the one who has taken Paul's work and put it in the proper perspective. Thank you so much!"
--GAIL TWITCHELL
Apparently then, Gail did break her "silence" enough to write a public message, in part that read:
"To my knowledge I have never said anything against Paul or Eckankar. I'm not sure where people come up with this nonsense."
I also wonder where people come up with this nonsense.