Thunder of Silence quotes?

[Etznab]

"When spiritual power is finally understood, it will be revealed to be no-power. And what is the meaning of such a statement? No-power means a state of consciousness in which there are not two forces combating one another, there are not two powers, one to be used to destroy the other. In other words, there is not a spiritual power that can be used by anyone to destroy his enemies; there is no spiritual power that can be used in place of the nuclear power upon which the world is now relying."

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ChristianScienceIssues2/conversations/topics/23638

Was that really from Goldsmith? I can't believe it. Somehow this needs to be verified, but one would need a copy of Goldsmith's book.

In any case it looks like Twitchell practically copied the text verbatim to compose some of his letters to Gail.

The texts are evidently so exact I really need to confirm.

[Etznab]

Thunder of Silence is here (last on the list).

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B77WkZ2E5LZ8aVhTYkp0Y3VsN1U&usp=sharing

Twitchell evidently copied verbatim!. Begin at LTG3 Chapter Freeing Yourself. Then look at Goldsmith's chapter III Beyond Power.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B77WkZ2E5LZ8aVhTYkp0Y3VsN1U&usp=sharing

[Henosis Sage]

I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY THAT EVERYONE ON THE LIGHT FORCE NETWORK
ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS EXCESSIVE VERBATIM COPYING HERE ........

I MEAN .. KINPA aka MATTHEW SHARPE, HE WOULDN'T LIE TO ANYONE ....

NOW, WOULD HE???
---------------------------------------------

COPY PASTE TEXT LTG III

165. Freeing Yourself

February 10,1965

My Dearest One:

As long as man has someone or something to which he can

cling, he will not find God. Whatever man knows or is able to

know with his human mentality-whether a thing or a

thought-is not God. No one is going to find God while he has

anything on which to stand, anything to which he can hold, or

anything about which he can think. Startling and unbelievable

as this inay seem to be, it is nevertheless true.

Most of us have known a fair share of the good things of life

and a few of the bad things; and while we r-nny not have been

happy with the bad things, we undoubtedly would also admit

that we did not find any permanent happiness in the good ones.

Many of us must have suspected that there is something be-
yond all this: but what? What is that something? Is it God, and

if so, what is it that men call God? Is God just a vague hupe, a

senseless dream, or is God really attainable? Is it possible to

The search for God is not easy for anyone. When the revela-
tion of God does come, it is something so entirely different from

what was expected that if a person is honest, he will have to

confess that it is beyond his understanding. Only after finding

corroboration for what he himself has discovered-as it is pre-
sented in a thousand different ways through the spoken and

written word-and then living with it for years and years, does

it ultimately register.

Religions have evolved because somewhere far back in the

past, men were constantly encountering troubles of one sort or

another in their human experience. If they were fishermen,

they found that the fish were not running well in some seasons.

If they were hunters, there were periods when game was

scarce. And for those engaged in farming, some years there was

too much rain and some years not enough. Occasiorially there

were enemies from across the border molesting them; and at

such times the strong nearly overcame the weak, plundering

their less powerful neighbors and often reducing them to the

status of slaves. Even if they did not hold their captives in com-
plete physical slavery. they held them in mental. slavery, keep-
ing them in as much darkness as possible so that they might

exploit them the more easily. Then, if and when the weak be-
came strong, the picture was often reversed.

The record of history indicatcs that the rnighty have always

taken from the weak. Bullets overpowered those who had bows

and arrows. Cannon triumphed over bullets. And finally, bombs

overcame cannons. One power has always been used to over-
come another power. and as a last resort, men have turned to

God hoping that He would be more powerful than the weapons

which their enemies possessed.

The Old Testament is filled with accounts of people and na-
tions who called upon God to destroy their enemies. That these

enemies were more wicked than they, and therefore deserved

to be destroyed, is usually not recounted-only that they

needed the land of their. enemies, their enemies' slaves, 01- some

other things which their enemies possessed. Their whole object

in praying to God was that We would wipe out the enemy and

deliver to them their enemies' property.

That is what God means to most people today-something

to use. Only now, instead of being concerned merely with their

human enemies, people have assigned to God the additional

responsibility of' removing their diseases and sins. Man always

seeks a greater power to overcome those powers that disturb or

annoy him.

Today the world has witnessed the discovery of tremendous

powers which are greater than any ever expected of? or attrib-
uted to, God-because material powers have been discovered

which can almost instantaneously wipe out the enemy if the

aggressor can get there first. The world has even discovered

mental powers. But no one has yet discovered a power in the

physical, mental, or spiritual realm that can destroy or over-
come the sins, diseases, and poverty of the world.

This modern mechanistic world is still seeking what people

sought before the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is still

praying to God for the same things which our pagan ancestors

prayed for. Man has not yet learned the great lesson: that over-
coming any and every difficulty does not come through using

any kind of power. And if, in all the thousands of years the

world has not learned the folly of seeking powers with which to

overcome error, it may be wise to let it pursue its vacillating

course while we walk the high way. We walk the infinite way of

ECK, demonstrating that there are no powers to be overcome,

because life is to be lived "Not by might, nor by power, but by

my spirit."

Many years ago, when the great wizard of General Electric,

Charles P. Steinmetz, said that the next great discovery in the

world would be spiritual power, he was prophetic. It must be

understood, however, that this spiritual power to which he re-
ferred is not power in the commonly accepted meaning of the

term, Spiritual power is the lack of power. It is no-power in the

sense that It is nothing that the world can conceive of as power,

because It is neither physical nor mental. It is not a power that

can be manipulated by man, and that is why a term such as

"using truth is archaic. Truth cannot be used. God cannot be

used. Imagine man using God! The very thought is shocking!

When spiritual power, the ECK, is finally understood, It

will be revealed to be no-power. And what is the meaning of

such a statement? No-power means a state of co~~sciousness in

which there are not two forces combatting one another, where

there are not two powers, one used to destroy the other. In

other words, there is not a spiritual power that can be used by

anyone to destroy his enemies. There is no spiritual power that

can be used in place of the nuclear power upon which the world

is now relying.

Some of us may think that inasmuch as the power we are

seeking and hoping to use is spiritual, that makes Its use legiti-
mate. But what we really are doing is expecting spiritual power

to do exactly what we have relied upon bombs to do. Let us not

be deluded into believing that it is possible to find some undis-
covered power to do what the already-discovered powers are

failing to do. We are not going to find a spiritual power to de-
stroy or overcome anything. Instead, we are going to overcome

the belief that there is good or evil in any effect or in any form.

More later.

[Henosis Sage]

and


167. The Law of Grace

March 9. 1965

My Dearest One:

Unfortunately there will always be people who are sick or

poor. Tfie poor are always with us-the poor in health, the poor

in purse, and the poor in morals. With these, we share our

abundance to the best of our ability. More than that we cannot.

do. We can never give them all they need or want. That is an

impossibility, because there is no end to what Inan needs or

wants. Until a person realizes the futility of seeking things, he

will not be fulfilled.

Why do we not stop searching for the power of God, stop

looking for some thought or some truth that we think will make

us well or prosperous, and acknowledge that, of our own selves,

we can do nothing. And that nobody has ever discovered a

power that destroys his enemies. Let us rest in the realization

that all the evil of this world constit~ites but a part of the

human state, and let it pass: not by pushing or forcing it out,

but by just letting it pass.

Nothing is accomplished by struggli~~g physically or men-
tally, because struggling only increases what seems to be an

evil power in our experience. It is you and I. who falsely enter-
tain a sense of power, which the thing itself, whatever it is,

does not have. That is why no power discovered in the physical,

mental, or spiritual real~rls has ever been sufficient to remove

unwanted conditions.

Every time the thought comes into our heads that we need

or desire something, the answer must be that man shall not

live by bread alone (by effect or creation) but by Spiril, the crea-
tor. That must be a continuous realization until we have over-
come our desire for anybody or allything that is in the external

realm. We have to lose all desire for the visible-in the realiza-
tion that we live not by that which is visible, but by that which

is invisible. Then vr-e shall find that the Infinite Invisible will

produce for our experience the persons, things, circumstances,

and conditions necessary to our daily life.

In the same way, every time we are tempted to think of

some power-some negative, evil, and erroneous power that is

apparently dominating our life, rendering it futile and fi-uit-
less-which we want destroyed, let us smile at it as we realize

that we need no power with which to overcome this discord. We

realize that there is a God, even though we do not know what

God is. I cannot know what God is because IT is beyond the

utmost compreherlsion of the human mind. If I could think

something that I believed to be God or truth, I would ultimately

find that is not IT. And so it would go on unto eternity until we

come to the realization that if we can think IT, IT is not that.

How could anyone possibly believe that a thought of God in

his mind could be God? That would surely be localizing and

making IT finite. Solomon realized fully that even the magnifi-
cent temple he built could not house God. Nothing is great

enough to house God. All the world cannot house IT, and yet we

build a little house in our minds, or a pigeon coop, and believe

that God is there si~nply because we have changed ITS name to

Mind, Life, or Love. We are trying to anchor IT in thought

where we think we can hold onto IT. How foolish that is, how

impossible it is to build a mentality big enough for that! Why,

this whole universe of our world isn't big enough to embrace

God, yet the Upanishads say that the Deity is in the acorn as

well as on the mountain peak.

Let us be satisfied to know that God is, SUGMAD is, and

that there is evidence of this in the life all around us-in the

law of like begetting like, in the abundance of love that there is

in a world (as loveless as this world sometimes secms to be),

and in the immeasurable beauty of a world where so much

beauty is being destroyed continuously.

What God is we do not know, but there are many ways in

which to observe and witness the Isness of God. Not by knowing

God, but by seeing the effects of God. We do not know exactly

how God functions, but in our own way we have discovered that

God operates in silence when thought is stilled. And when the

human sense of self is so humble that it really and truly be-
lieves that ''I can of mine own self do nothing," and then has the

patience to wait for God's glory to be revealed.

It is only those who are ready to give up their concepts of

God, to stop dreaming, thinking, and outlining, who in that com-
plete surrendcr can let God, the SUGMAD, reveal ITSELF By

placing one's life in ITS keeping and 1eLting IT do what IT will

with it: then there will be descended upon him the gift of

grace-that which the power flows through-or rather, the ex-
ecution of God's will. As mentioned before, power doesn't work

when we reach that higher level-only the grace of God.

We can come to this state of receptivity and respond to it

only when we are ready. And our readiness comes only when

we have experimented with all. the different forms of God that

the world presents to us-the God of the religious world, the

metaphysical God, the God we think we can use, the God that

clerrlonstrates things. Every kind of God we try. Only when we

come to the end of trying are we ready for this surrender, ready

to give up seeking a great power to destroy our enemies or to

shower us with gifts. We give up the desire for that kind of

God, and we rest in this understanding that God is. ITS grace

is our sufficiency-not power, not might. Man shall not live by

the outer powers or outer things, but by the Word, the ECK.

Anyone who delves into metaphysics sooner or later loses

his faith in material power and material means. Now when he

takes the next step of giving up his faith in mental means-
mental powers and remedies-he comes to the real God, the

SUGMAD, which can be experienced but never known with the

mind, and which cannot be used.

So the world can never. rise above the idea of using one

power or another and move into the realm of no-power until

Soul has taken it upon Itself to work with the Law of Grace

instead of power. The conflicting reports of power versus grace

gave rise to the syn~bols of God and Devil in the Middle Ages,

and it has hardly been dissolved in the mind of anyone who is

trying to find God. But it rnust be done, and when it is done,

only then comes the grace of God into Soul to give all needed

things-peace or necessity of body.

hlore later.

[Etznab]

So, even before publishing the Eckankar books, he was active with copying and plagiarizing?

I see a pattern.

[Henosis Sage]

----


Oooh ahhh, another post made and deleted in the last few minutes.

Not by me. ;-)

[Etznab]

The pattern is further enhanced by Orion Magazine refusing to publish future articles by Twitchell ... reportedly on account of plagiarism of Troward, etc.

Evidently it was the early to mid 1960s when these plagiarisms were happening. So when the name Rebazar Tarzs shows up in about 1964 and credited with words from other people's writings I just wonder if this was Paul Twitchell trying to disguise his sources? Since he was married around the same time (that Rebazar Tarzs showed up in written materials) I rather suspect Paul was motivated to make money by writing and "creating" materials for publication that he could sell for a price. In other words, writing seems to be his source of income. If people knew a lot of it came from other masters, other paths and other writers books then there could be problems. But after the pedigree of a "said to be" over 500 year old Tibetan Lama (perhaps not an original idea ... Babaji was said to be over 500 years old too) who could argue?

After all these years I don't imagine Paul Twitchell writing and creating all of this as if locked away in a secret room hidden away from his wife. No. At this point in time I wonder if they talked about it openly among themselves? I mean, about all the things that look to be "made up"? Iow, I really doubt that Gail was so unaware about what Paul was doing. After all, Didn't he meet her at the library where she worked and where Paul Twitchell would check out his books?

If it were all true and not make believe then why isn't Gail a higher Initiate and active member of Eckankar today? Last I heard she didn't consider herself a member of Eckankar and I don't recall her attending any seminars for decades.

Instead of Doug Marman, I would rather like to see Gail write a book about Paul Twitchell and Eckankar. I don't mean one from the 1970s, or 1980s. I'm talking about a book subsequent to the many public illustrations of copious plagiarism, paraphrase and copying having graced the Internet since the time of David Lane, Ford Johnson and Doug Marman. Much of the examples were not ever before put in a single place, but over the last five years that has not been the case. Now is the time for someone who was there during the time of the writings and creation of writings to (IMHO) possibly add to "the conversation". I can think of no one person who was closer to the act than Paul's 2nd wife Gail. What she has said and / or reportedly said about the matter should probably be considered as very important, imo. Especially if disturbed Eckankar individuals went to her after the discovery of plagiarisms and started asking questions.

There was reportedly a signed contract (in so many words) releasing Gail from all liability for the writings of Paul Twitchell for all time ... yet I don't recall the time period of the individuals who went to her asking questions. If it was before, or after she signed the contract. One thing I do know for sure is that the review on Doug Marman's site and the comment (by Gail) about his book came many years subsequent to the contract between Gail and Eckankar. So the timing about allegations of "Paul made up the whole thing, etc., and along with the timing of the Helen Frye scandal, maybe needs to be considered on a timeline and looked at in context. THis could possibly help to explain things a little further.

[Henosis Sage]

-----

Hi Etznab,

"Charly claims to have gone to Kentucky and spoke with Paul's nephew, who
confirms that almost everything Twitchell said about his early life was a lie."

It appears that these visits to paducah and "recorded"? phone calls with Gail
occurred in 1979/1980 leading up to the Eckankar Court case in Sedona over
Helen Frye's multi-mln dollar estate.

So that was before the July 1982 sale contract.

The other well known (?) report of what Gail said came via David Lane circa 1978 - quoting

Researching Eckankar and the issue of Objectivity
Date: 10 May 1994

David Lane:

[...]

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.

POSTED to a.r.e. in 1994 -- the very early days indeed.
alt.religion.eckankar ›
Researching Eckankar and the issue of Objectivity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/dq48rFABtX8/8aMw0NcNauYJ

No one will find this marman's the whole truth book, because truth wasn't his priority.

also there is:

Researching Eckankar and the issue of Objectivity
2014-08-27

by ETZNAB:

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

----

Now given what Patti Simpson said to me, and that she also mentioned Gail as
being in alignment with herself I do not believe Gail when she claims via
Marman's report that she has "never said anything against Eckankar" - when she
has.

But maybe Patti was lying to me? Given lying is so prevalent in Eckankar
circles from Paul Twitchell onward, it's a distinct possibility.

Anyway if Gail ever wants to come clean the points you raise Etznab, she can
use the archive to remind her of the facts and activate a more accurate memory
of what happened and when.

Like, say when hell freezes over!

Public url pteha -- http://goo.gl/bTUVSK

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-M0yAR0UPhPalFWRzl6YmlmM00

[Henosis Sage]

REFS
1995 Where's Gail Twitchell-Gross Now - An Update via Charly Wallace
http://web.archive.org/web/20140304173113/http://dlane5.tripod.com/charlyeck.html

1978 Gail Twitchell tells Ann Arnold & John Hall Eckankar is a Fraud
Historical background details from David Lane, David Parker, Brad Steiger & Doug Marman
This was after Gail Twitchell-Gross had separated and divorced Darwin Gross in early 1978
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNDJQQUZZMVhLX1U/view?usp=sharing


1980-10 Helen Frye Sedona AZ Estate vs Eckankar Court Case - Detailed history by PTHA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPUzZNNTZqN1ltbzg/view?usp=sharing

and btw
Scientology & Eckankar plagiarisms
http://web.archive.org/web/20140304173412/http://dlane5.tripod.com/scient.html

and
1995 History of Eckankar Legal Threats 1977-1993 against David Lane
http://web.archive.org/web/20140304173715/http://dlane5.tripod.com/cash.html

1996 David C Lane Timeline 1977 to 1994 Eckankar Research TMOASM
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.religion.eckankar/MTJFbcF3wS8/iTeI8xx0-dkJ

Cheers

[Etznab]

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:42:35 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

So it is fair to say then that Twitchell evidently plagiarized Goldsmith for some of his Letters to Gail.