Truth vs. Fiction - Paul Twitchell & Eckankar

[Etznab]

Beginning on page one I've decided to review the research of David Lane about Paul Twitchell and Eckankar. The main objective is to learn how much of David's findings are based on fact. Another objective (later on) is to expand on those findings based on research conducted by individuals since the time of David L. and Doug Marman's (and others) books. The key here is to list the facts, and only the facts.

Chapter One - THE EARLY YEARS OF PAUL TWITCHELL - Determining a Birth Date

David writes:

The 1922 birth date, as we have noted, is untenable, and the 1912 birth date does not have a birth record made during that year to support it. Hence, it seems likely that both dates are of John Paul's making. However, the 1908, 1909, and 1910 birth dates fit in chronologically with the real life events of John Paul; thus making them stand as the most reliable dates for Twitchell's actual birth date. Nevertheless, it is safer to assume that John Paul's birth took place somewhere between 1908 and 1912 .

http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm1.html

It appears to be a fact that Paul Twitchell was not born in the year 1922. A fact, I believe, corroborated by Harold Klemp (the Mahanta should know?) and others.

Quoting excerpt from Eckankar official site:

"There are several different versions of the date Paul was born into this life. One person I talked to said the Twitchell family Bible recorded the year as 1910; another person, who also told me he'd seen the family Bible, said Paul's birthdate was shown as 1908. It's amazing how certain each person was that he knew the truth. Each one claimed to have seen it with his own eyes. So by some accounts, he was born on October 23, 1908 or 1910, while other accounts give the date as October 22."

http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html

***

Research over past years has pinpointed the birth year for "P.T." as 1909. This date appears to be substantiated by census records from 1910.

Findings so far.

(1) Paul Twitchell was NOT born in 1922.

......... To be continued .........

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

---

Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chapter One, by Doug Marman
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch._One.htm

[Etznab]

Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chapter One, by Doug Marman - along with David Lane, along with Ford Johnson, along with Harold Klemp must simply agree with the facts about what is true. Why? Because no amount of spin is going to change the truth.

For example, I have found that David Lane shared that Paul Twitchell was not born in 1922. Basically, others have shared the same. However, David revealed a lot of things first. Before the others did. In fact, others had come to write about (and try to explain things) because of David. The main objective [concerning this thread] is to learn how much of David's findings were / are based on fact. It is not about spinning those facts.

I know it might be a new concept for some to simply list findings based on fact, and without spinning the facts in every which way. Already years of spin and endless debates have ensued following the writings of people who researched the truth about Paul Twitchell and Eckankar. This thread is not about that; and I know it's going to be hard for some to grasp that point.

All the writers might have spun things their own way, and continue to do so into the future. However, if you ask me, this was the detriment of pioneering research that - so to speak - sent the train off the cliff and ended what had begun.

The train is back on the rails now and is beginning with listing the facts. Full steam ahead ... whuu! whuu! ... chuga, chuga, chuga ... .

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

------

Yes, there has been a lot of spin, and so much by Lane, a lot of the spin cleared up with Marman's research:

Dialogues in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm

[Santim Vah]

Mmmm.

On Dialogues, Chapter One by Doug, as has been referenced here above,
is the following excerpt.

===
Doug says:

David does a pretty good job of reporting these facts, except for a
couple of instances where he simply couldn't contain himself. Such as
his comment:

DL ...these two documents do summarily indicate that the '1922'
birth date was a fabrication made years later by Paul, presumably to
convince his young wife, Gail, that he was not much older than
herself.

Why David insists on inserting his unsupported presumptions, I
don’t know, but it sure does cloud the facts. While the records David
turned up clearly show the 1922 date to be untenable, David hasn't
produced a single record showing that Paul himself was the cause
behind any of these inaccurate dates. This fact isn’t at all obvious
in his book. Like most readers, when I first read David’s chapter, I
thought David had caught Paul lying about his birth date. I had
assumed that David had something to back up such comments as:

For some reason, Twitchell had led Steiger and others (including
Gail Atkinson and Jack Jarvis) to believe that he was born in the
early 1920’s (specifically October 22, 1922) when in actuality he was
born much earlier (1908-1912).

It was only after posting my first response to David’s Chapter
One on the Internet that Steve Rundfelt wrote to say he could not find
a single case where Paul had lied about his age or birth date. After
all, he said, we can hardly accuse Paul of lying on his death
certificate! That’s when I looked more closely at the facts and
discovered he was right. Suddenly, a different picture began to
emerge.


end quote
=========

OK, so it appears that the key comment here surrounds the suggestion
by Steve Rundfelt, and being backed by Doug too, is this :

*... could not find a single case where Paul had lied about his age or
birth date.*

Clearly, this is untrue.

Here is a scan of Paul's Marriage Certificate to one Gail Ann Atkinson
in January 1964.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0KObtCQpPKbNjQ3MTMzOWQtMGUwOS00ZTZjLThjMzMtYzNiYWM3ZmQ0M2Fk/edit

I would draw readers attention to the top right form box.

Paul's DOB is clearly recorded as 10/11/22

That DOB recording there is clearly untrue.

I would then ask that the reader scan down the document, to the woman
in the stamp and to her lap.

There one can see a fair representation of Paul's own personal
Signature on this official form by the Dept of Health Services
California USA.

====

So where as David has very much made several unsupported presumptions
about what Paul's *intent* or purpose was or wasn't .. he like
everyone else is quote entitled to his opinions, of what this and the
other evidence he found meant to him.

Having different opinions, does rise to the category of *spin* just
becasue people disagree. *Spin* is essentially changing the meaning of
what the facts actually show, or mean in the bigger picture of
reality.

I would suggest that at least one document exists which summarily
indicates that the '1922' birth date was a fabrication made years
later by Paul .......

And on that score, Prof David Christopher Lane has indeed always been
correct, right, and true.


====

Furthermore, David goes on to say in Chapter also:

DL For some reason, Twitchell had led Steiger and others (including
Gail Atkinson and Jack Jarvis) to believe that he was born in the
early 1920’s (specifically October 22, 1922) when in actuality he was
born much earlier (1908-1912).

This comment is a reporting of the facts, of the matter. Twitchell had
led Stieger and others to believe that he was born in the early
1920's, when in actuality he was born much earlier. Besides the
marriage cert. there is much more facts that confirm that as being
correct, right, and true.

*For some reason* means that David didn't know exactly why. He offered
on various occasions many possibilities as well as his own opinions at
the time of writing.

====

However when Doug says this :

DM While the records David turned up clearly show the 1922 date to be
untenable, David hasn't produced a single record showing that Paul
himself was the cause behind any of these inaccurate dates.

Clearly that is true. David hadn't. But Ford Johnson did, and that is
the Marriage Cert.

Paul is clearly the *cause* of the inaccurate date on the marriage
cert, and there is also substanctial records that likewise show why
Gail also used that date in the death cert., why Jack Jarvis believed
he was 40 something in the SP-i in 1963, and the direct primary cause
why Stieger also believed/presented Paul in his writings as *fitting*
the 1922 DOB .... that's what Paul had *led them to believe* .. whilst
simultaneously making distracting comments about *what difference does
it make* and making a joke about it thus avoiding the subject
altogether. Yes it was a fun game, and others would try to work it out
and guess.

Paul is known for keeping his DOB and age a mystery. For reasons
unknown.

Harold Klemp however suggested quite openly during a seminar talk back
in the 1980s; after first gaining access to Paul's private Archive of
writings, documents, letters, and materials.

ECKANKAR International Youth Conference,
Las Vegas, Nevada, Friday, April 20, 1984

"Paul loved his privacy. ... he made it a point to obscure any facts
associated with his life. ... It reminds me of the philosophy of the
tax protestors. With taxes being so high today, they go to great
lengths to conceal their income. ... But, of course, they began to
participate in it even before they had a voice in the matter—by way of
a social security number. .... In a sense, this may have been Paul's
philosophy in covering the trail of his life. He kept adding and
changing so many things that it's taking a while to unscramble it and
figure out who he really was."

It is also a fact that Harold's pattern when speaking is to kinda
*under-state* things. Softly softly, not being direct, and rarely
blunt.

WARNING: This the blunt version.

Paul used multiple official identities during his life in order to
spread his income across several identities.

In order to submit a valid Tax Return in the USA one needed to first
Register using their own personal Social Security Number.

In order to create a Social Security Number back in the 1930's to the
1960's one needed first off a official Birth certificate.

or at least a decent counterfeit of one ... and who better to make
Counterfeit certificates in the old days except an experienced
printer .. like one's own buddies working at magazine and newspaper
printing presses .. they had all the tools and skills required.

So, even easier is to change a 1912 to a 1922 .. and then copy the
entire thing as it it was new from the Dept of Health Records.

And even better if one used a pseudonym as an author ... and was
registered with various writer agents and publishers in a different
name & DOB .. but nothing ever appeared in your name anyway. And if it
did happen to make some money in your own name, then use the 1922 DOB
SSN .. on the west coast, and the 1912 DOB SSN on the east coast.

and even better still if one had a Jacob P Twitchell birth
certificate ... as well as say, a John Paul Twitchell birth cert., and
both had different DOBs .. one the 22nd oct 1912, and the other 23rd
Oct 1909, and perhaps a 3rd as J Paul Twitchell 22nd Oct 1922 ... then
who would ever know .. ????

and then even better better still, if one had multiple addresses,
connected with trusted friends, like the Houseboats establishment in
Seattle that still had Paul Twitchell listed as his Home address and
still receiving US Mail there more than maybe 2 years after he had
left there, and was living in San Diego.

I think David seriously misjudged Paul when he came to the conclusion
that paul was pretending to younger than he was just to try and win
the heart/impress gail or others ...

I really do think David Lane lost the plot in his interpretation of
his research there, because rather than continuing to do research; and
keep testing his theories he stopped .. perhaps he even made the
assumption that what he believed based on what he had found was good
enough for him. No crime there, we all do that, it quite human.


====

To be mindful of important changes over time; in Doug's book The Whole
Truth he has *updated Chapter One* text and information in MAJOR ways
from what still exists on the Dialogues website.

Doug's book no longer carries his comments suggesting that there was
no evidence of Paul giving out inaccurate information on his DOB. He
addresses things from a different pov. But you'll have to buy the book
to see it. It is not available online to *view*.

AS such the referral to Doug's Dialogues website maybe could use a big
disclaimer, that not all the information up there is actually
accurate, and reflects what is actually known for several years now.
Still TWT book is much more accurate than the Dialogues website, in a
number of ways.

So much so it can actually change the overall impression one might
come away with .. between one source and the other. The BOOK is far
superior and more accurate. Though it isn't perfect either. What is?

fwiw thx


Essentially, it appears to me that David, Ford, Doug, and even
Harold .. all agree.

The 1922 DOB is untenable, and that it came from Paul himself, is in
fact undeniable.

All 4 seem have a variation to the theme as to what that is supposed
to mean regarding Paul and his *intentions* etc.. in their own
opinion.

Anyone who has ever said Paul was not responsible for the mis-
information and cover-up of his real age & DOB, and anyone who
believed Paul was not responsible for the incorrect and untrue
information being given out about him, were very clearly, in
hindsight, totally wrong.

David Lane on the other hands, on this one single FACT he expressed in
several ways, that the 1922 DOB came from Paul knowing it was false,
was and is still correct, true, and RIGHT.

<smile>

Who'd have guessed that?

[Santim Vah]

On May 29, 2:16 pm, Santim Vah <sean.arund...@gmail.com> wrote:

TYPO sorry ..

Paul's DOB is clearly recorded as 10 / 22 / 22

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

------

FACT is one thing.

No one disagrees about Paul's birth date. I don't know who found his exact birth date first, but from an a.r.e. archive I read today, Doug claims to have found Paul's exact birth date first from the census records.

SPIN to me means "projections" as Doug politely calls it in the 2003 a.r.e. archived post quoted below.

To me there are two kinds of spin: 1) the more positive spin whereupon one can ruminate on different scenarios that might have taken place and either being neutral and/or giving one the benefit of the doubt when the exact knowledge/fact is unknown. And 2) negative spin projecting only something bad about whomever one does not know the exact knowledge/motivation about.

Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in Lane's thesis (and Ford's too I presume from excerpts I've read). In the exchange below Lane imagines the motivation for the 1922 birth date on the marriage license--when actually he has no idea whether or not Gail knew Paul's actual birth date when they got the marriage license.

---

Quoting a post from thread title: "Why is Paul's Marriage Certificate with Gail important to some Eckists?"

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/news:6pCdnQZn_r_...@comcast.com/alt.religion.eckankar/1Yhi7BxCb3U/overview"

Doug Marman Post reply

7/19/03

Other recipients:

"neuralsurfer" wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.03071...@posting.google.com...

> This one is for you, Rich:
>

> Here is an exchange between Doug and myself:
>
> DAVID LANE WRITES:
> > Doug, are you interested in securing Paul's marriage certificate with
Gail?
> >
> > Wouldn't that also be interesting to round out these discussions?
> >
> > DOUG:
> > It would be interesting to see, I agree. It could give you your first
real
> > piece of evidence that Paul lied about his age.
>
>
> Okay,
>
> we now have that marriage certificate via Ford Johnson.
>
>
> Doug's own words from the above quote are:
>
> "first real piece of evidence that Paul lied about his age."
>
>
> Twitchell lied about his age to Gail, to his biographer, to Jack Jarvis,
to Eckists.
>
>
>
> Why would a man lie about his age to a young woman?

[Quote]:
DOUG RESPONDS:
Funny that you would bring this up, David, since I just saw this document
myself a few minutes ago.

However, I also recently had a conversation about this subject with Patti
Simpson. She worked quite closely with Paul and was very close with Gail,
and still is.

She told me that Paul always made fun about the whole idea of people wanting
to know his age, and especially the forms where they asked for his age. He
didn't think his outer age mattered, and therefore wouldn't saying anything
about it. However, when it came to forms, he found that as long as he put
something down, they wouldn't bother him. According to Patti, this was how
Paul acted about it, and Gail knew completely. It was the cause for lots of
laughs for them.

So, once again, this idea that Paul was lying to Gail, or others, is just
another of your own projections onto Paul.

But I do agree that this counts technically as a lie. It does not show he
lied to Gail or his biographer or Jack Jarvis, etc. But nice try. I find the
real truth that Patti shared much more interesting than the story you've
been trying to tell about Paul, based on your imagined ideas.

By the way, I also saw on Ford's website this interesting letter from Herb
Wallerstein, and old Paducah childhood friend of Paul's. He wrote this to
Paul. I'm not sure of the exact date:

"This is a true story. I want you to chalk it up. Years ago I was in the
hospital in St. Louis. (Suffering like a dog.) My nurse was called to the
long distance telephone. Quick as a flash, she returned to my bed-side and
said: Mr. Wallerstein, Walter Winchell in Washing, DC is on the phone and
wants to know how you are feeling?

"In all of my pain I answered, "Please, don't joke with me, I'm not playing
games." She answered, "PLEASE, I don't know what to say or do, the man is on
the long distance phone. What should I tell him??" "Tell him, I'm not in
Who's in Who and I don't give a HOOTT.

"A few minutes later when my nurse returned I looked at her inquisitive
face, what I saw was a wonderful smile and blue eyes that danced like
sunshine on the sea. She said: "I'm sorry Mr. Wallerstein, I made a mistake.
Walter Winchell of Washington was NOT the columnist Walter Winchell of
newspaper fame in New York City. The telephone message to you was from a
literary dear friend of yours from your home town, Paducah. He said he knew
Irvin Cobb, but thought the world of you a-n-d his name was Paul Twitchell,
a life long friend.

"I thought for a minute and said: "Young lady, that's the best medicine I've
had all day. A FRIEND IN NEED IS A FRIEND INDEED. The telephone message told
me that nothing on this earth will ever take the place of LOVE AND
FRIENDSHIP." Then I thought for another minute, well, the day seemed to have
become brighter. Every word here is true and a fact."

Doug.
[end quote]

---

I don't know if I will respond to much of this stuff here. I see little difference between Marman's ebook and his published book, and suggest for those interested go to:

Dialogues in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm

------

[Etznab]

"I don't know if I will respond to much of this stuff here. I see little difference between Marman's ebook ... ."

There is nothing to respond to. This thread is intended to illustrate facts that David Lane found to be true. That's it.

[Santim Vah]

On May 30, 8:28 am, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> "I don't know if I will respond to much of this stuff here.  I see little difference between Marman's ebook ... ."
>
> There is nothing to respond to. This thread is intended to illustrate facts that David Lane found to be true. That's it.

Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in

Lane's thesis (when still missing facts)

Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in

Harold's thesis (when still missing facts)

Negative spin about David Lane's motivations is prevalent in Doug's
thesis (when still missing facts)

Positive spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in
Doug's thesis (when still missing facts)

OK already. <G>

A formed opinion based on a whole lot of factors has been expressed by
many .. when still missing facts. doesnt matter what ya call it ..
people stick with their own beliefs & opinions .. not that hard to
work out.

It's not a crime to suggest to "me it looks like this ..." or " I
presume he did it for this" or to be wrong.

David's original revised version is over 25 years old now; Harold's
talks in 1984 are 30 tears old now; Dougs website is 12 years old
now .. and the book is about 6 years old... the rest is lost in pixels
somewhere yet the amount of new ebooks available , old newspapers and
magazines and genealogy info is simply mind boggling ... and there's
still a lot of information known to be out there .. one simply needs
to go check it out or pay for it sometimes.

K .. doesnt matter :-)

[Santim Vah]

On May 30, 12:41 pm, Santim Vah <sean.arund...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:28 am, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "I don't know if I will respond to much of this stuff here.  I see little difference between Marman's ebook ... ."
>
> > There is nothing to respond to. This thread is intended to illustrate facts that David Lane found to be true. That's it.
>
> Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in
> Lane's thesis (when still missing facts)
>
> Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in
> Harold's thesis (when still missing facts)
>
> Negative spin about David Lane's motivations is prevalent in Doug's
> thesis (when still missing facts)
>
> Positive spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in
> Doug's thesis (when still missing facts)
>
> OK already. <G>
>

sorry, Typo .. meant this to read as ..

POSITIVE AND Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is

prevalent in
Harold's thesis (when still missing facts)

.. in the proper context same as others having an informed opinion
about Paul etc. all are ok.

and i forgot another little thing

RE ..... Lane imagines the motivation for the 1922 birth date on the
marriage license ..... and

DM So, once again, this idea that Paul was lying to Gail, or others,

is just
another of your own projections onto Paul.
But I do agree that this counts technically as a lie. It does not show
he

lied to Gail ....

SV : Gail gets to read and sign the marriage certificate, at the
moment they are married. Written on that Marriage certificate is
Paul's dob written as 22 Oct 1922 .

Having seen that when asked subsequently, or she needed to use that
info as his wife, a reasonable person would expect Gail to answer
10/22/1922 .. to the best of her knowledge.

No one knows what other info Paul shared confidentially with Gail
(bless her cotton socks) , as she has never spoken of this matter and/
or the DOB 1922 wasn't an issue anyone ever raised with Paul that I
know of.

In the age of twitter, everyone gets to have an opinion. :-)

cheers

[Santim Vah]

Full credit to a Mr Clark for providing Seattle *facts*, and thanks
to
Mr Google for the satellite map.

Anyone interested in seeing the Houseboats location in the city of
Seattle where Paul lived during1960-62?
http://goo.gl/maps/ZLxb

Paul always liked being close to the water. He spoke about it and the
facts show that's exactly what he did. :-)

In San Francisco he was close enough to hear the ocean, and it was an
easy walk to get there. In San Diego the first home Gail and Paul got
there was absolute beach front .. to the west of the airport .. it
was
more the size of a Bungalow, and only about a 10 minute drive to the
California Parapsychology Foundation was located. Records suggest
that
they arrived in San Diego no later than Dec 1964, so all up they were
both only in San Francisco for a year all up.

I don't know of anyone else sharing such facts as these in a book,
talk, or
post before.

cheers, fwiw

[Santim Vah]

RE

I see little difference between Marman's ebook and his published
book,

I feel that a summary scan of Chap One in both will show a few
differences.

quoted from Doug it says:
She told me that Paul always made fun about the whole idea of people
wanting
to know his age, and especially the forms where they asked for his
age. He
didn't think his outer age mattered, and therefore wouldn't saying
anything
about it.

sv: This is great new info at the time, David never knew that's for
sure.
He probably never asked them. Such things are excellent reports,
though all it tells us is about how Paul behaved about it to them, in
their perspective. It doesn't really say anything about the basic
fact
that David pointed out that Paul must have been responsible for the
1922 DOB.

quote goes on :

However, when it came to forms, he found that as long as he put
something down, they wouldn't bother him.

... I think its fair to say that, that the evidence shown in the
forms
I have seen is that Paul pretty well put down correct information
which was fairly consistent; with the exception of the DOB.
Looking thru the forms .. and considering all the information now
available; in all the forms it shows that his address was always
right; his name was technically right - but he wrote it in several
different ways .. J. Paul Twitchell, or J P Twitchell, or Paul
Twitchell; the details about his parents is always correct, though
first names are also spelt differently; but their born in Counties ..
and similar details usually found on forms is pretty well accurate,
true and correct.

And when brings all the other evidence for Paul's name and dob there
is a lot that is consistent; and when the DOB varies in different
family owned Bibles this is not an uncommon thing back in those days

---
What it also shows that Paul does change his *official* DOB, but that
when he does so, it is also consistent from there on.

The evidence does show that for 30 years Paul repeatedly recorded his
DOB as either 22 Oct 1912 .. or 22 Oct 1922 from 1941 until his death
in 1971. No one else could be responsible for that. It is known that
in 1941 a Birth Record Copy was procured from the Paducah offices
that
recorded = Jacob P. Twitchell 22nd Oct 1912

Before 1941 it is shown clearly that Paul was repeatedly recorded in
the Census and local directories as being DEFINITELY BORN IN 1909.
Until 1936, when the DOB changes in the Who's Who of Kentucky as 22
Oct 1908 with the name being John Paul Twitchell.

That date is one of those known to be recorded in one of the Family
Bibles.

So let's see how this runs in real time straight line time line that
is based on known documented facts today (bar any typos) versus what
was known way back in 1977 to 2005

In the 1910, 1920, & 1930 Census Paul's DOB clearly represents as
10/1909

In 1926 highly regarded Genealogy book the DOB reads Paul 10/23/1909

In 1936 in the Who's Who of Kentucky, the DOB reads exactly as John
Paul 10/22/1908

In 1940 Census the DOB reads as 10/1909 (?)

In 1941 Birth Record Copy the DOB reads Jacob P. Twitchell 10/22/1912

In 1942 Navy & Marriage the DOB reads J. Paul Twitchell 10/22/1912

In 1959 at the SP-I Jack Jarvis co-workers the DOB reads as 10/1922

In 1960 at his Divorce the DOB reads back to 1912 DOB as Jacob Paul
Twitchell

In the July 1963 SP-I article by JJ the DOB returns to 1922

In Jan 1964 marriage with Gail the DOB reads 1922

In 1967 - 1971 stories as a teenager in Paris & India & Sudar Singh
the DOB reads 1922

In 1968 IMSIAF by Brad Stieger the DOB reads 1922

In 1971 death cert. the DOB reads 1922

From 1941 onwards there is no known evidence that can show where Paul
Twitchell has recorded or conveyed his correct DOB, or year of Birth.

That is over a period of 30 years.

From 1959 until his death 12 years later, existing records show that
Paul consistently presented an image to others, and records in
official documents of a 10/22/1922 DOB.

Clearly Paul knew that both the 1912 and the 1922 DOB were not
correct
every time he used them.

Had Paul not done so, then there would have been nothing for David C
Lane to find or report regarding Paul's DOB way back in 1977 and
since.

=====

I think that this shows that the information first given out by David
was very close, and that subsequent facts that came to light clearly
show what David was suggesting - that Paul gave out false info about
his age and DOB, that the 1912 & 1922 DOB were false, and that one
could only hold Paul as being responsible for this incorrect
information being used and recorded; and the true facts were clearly
being purposely covered up by Paul himself -- *for some unknown
reason* -- meaning Paul never disclosed why to anyone. For even Gail
did not know his real DOB when he died in 1971, according to reports
by Doug.

Doug obviously presents possible alternatives for Paul's motivations
and intentions; as does Harold. .. and many others from Ford to
Akatha
folks, to Darwin and David Lane.

Dougs research tells us how Paul behaved with questions about his
age,
but those reports tell us nothing about the purpose or why Paul
consistently recorded and allowed to be published information which
presented his age as fitting a 1922 DOB, when it wasn't.

Harold mentions at an Eck seminar tax evasion strategies adopted by
people in the middle of a talk all about Paul, but I have not seen
one
tiny piece of evidence myself that supports such a theory.

David initially thought it was just a ruse to get the girl; well,
it's
as good as any other theory. None are really based in any hard
evidence known publicly, imho.

Yet the facts remain. The info that David found and shared about the
DOB issue was substantially correct - despite his several mistakes
and
errors along the way.

====

On the flip side ... in the late 1990s there was a myth that
persisted
and held by many that hardly anything written by or about Paul was
reliable, and based in facts.

Doug and others who helped him found quite a bit about Paul archived
away in Libraries and universities; and in the last decade much more
newspapers are archived online. The documents show that Paul had a
rich period of involvement in sports coaching, leadership projects,
and writing. The information is essentially correct bar a a few minor
points (he Grad HS in 1931 not 1928) in the Who's Who item in 1936.
In
fact it's worth getting Doug's book for the excellent material he has
compiled into his book, including lots of stuff from his Navy time.

And apparently there is even more still there in the Library archives
here and there in Kentucky.

One good example of small pieces of information building together it
was shown that where jack jarvis mentions where Paul was living, and
where he used to hang out and so on .. the general nature of his
lifestyle as described has turned up to be 100% accurate ..... the
location, the address, everything all adds up ... the only thing that
is out of whack in that Man of Parts article is the clear statement
that Paul *just turned 40*.

JJ "editing two small newspapers, one a monthly the other a
weekly .....
he brings in enough to pay the rent on a small house on the water
just
west of Hirram Chittenden Locks and to buy food."

This is the place where Paul was living in July 1963
Paul Twitchell assistant editor Theatrical Stage Employees Union
Local
No. 15.
Paul Twitchell editor North West Veteran ... Lived at 5611 Seaview
Avenue NW. Phone # SU-2680

http://goo.gl/maps/szVY

That's not in anyone's history book.

I can understand why people aren't interested in Paul's life. We all
have our personal interests and preferences.

Thx sean :)

[MalcolmO]

> Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chapter One, by Doug Marman

Lot of whitewash. Guy thinks he can turn lies into truth! Amazing.
<shakes head>

[MalcolmO]

> It does not show he
> lied to Gail or his biographer or Jack Jarvis, etc.

Right. It just shows that he lied to the State of California (and
perhaps, by extension, to all of its citizens).

[Santim Vah]

FWIW

imho, it is fair enough to question the actions of someone using a
false DOB, which is what David Lane was

doing; including this fact into the mix of information about Paul.

What many people seem to ignore is that in the wider world there could
be legal consequences of giving false

information on a marriage license application. They include being
charged with perjury or a misdemeanor. The

facts show that Paul has done this on at least two occasions.

For example, Wisconsin law states, "A penalty of not more than $10,000
or imprisonment of not more than 9

months or both to any person who knowingly gives false information
when applying for a marriage license."

Rhode Island law states, "Any person who willfully and knowingly
supplies false information on a marriage

license shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both,

pursuant to Section 23-3-28 of the RI General Laws."

also on most forms is Declarations such as this:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA THAT WE ARE UNMARRIED AND THAT THE FOREGOING INFORMATION
IS TRUE AND

CORRECT TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

That David Lane and others saw or opined enough clear evidence that
satisfied them that Paul was using false

information, it is quite understandable that that fact would be
brought to peoples attention whilst doing

research on Paul's or anyone's life. It isn't David's fault nor an
attack on Eckankar with intent just because

Darwin or others didn't know anything about such matters in the
1970's.

It isn't David's fault that Paul appears so cavalier about things like
his DOB being accurate.

Paul knew that his 1912 and 1922 DOB were wrong. Its got nothing to do
with Gail, and very little to do with the reasons Paul gave to
confidants for totally avoiding such questions.

[Etznab]

The most major finding on page one appears to be the D.O.B. info. It sets the whole timeline for Paul's later years, and whenever he mentions events and dates during his life - such as his age; what happened at such and such a time / age, etc. It also let's people know how old Paul Twitchell really was (vs. what he said he was) during any given year.

So with this one finding about the D.O.B. I will move on to page two and look for more potential findings of fact by David Lane in those online pages. Here is the link for page two (THE SEARCH (1950-1963)

http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm2.html

***

Findings so far.

(1) Paul Twitchell was born earlier than 1922. Years earlier. (Most likely in later part of 1909.)

[Santim Vah]

On May 30, 5:56 pm, JR <johnrcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 10:20 pm, Santim Vah <sean.arund...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > FWIW

>
> > Paul knew that his 1912 and 1922 DOB were wrong. Its got nothing to do
> > with Gail, and very little to do with the reasons Paul gave to
> > confidants for totally avoiding such questions.
>

> hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>
> Have you ever listened to someone who reads magazine stand astrology
> serials? I have. Maybe his ex-wife or family member drove him nuts
> with every latest generalized forecast of his future from these
> tabloids. The Eck-Vidya (chapter 4?) devotes a chapter to the
> difference between astrology and practicing the Vidya. The forecasts
> are a projection which imposes the author's speculations on those in
> sympathy with them. So why not keep the fortune tellers at bay with
> phony birth dates? I would.

John,

Seriosuly, no matter how true or valid your comments are here in a
general sense, it is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here, the
simple fact that david did get it right about Paul being the one
responsible for usign a false/fake/wrong DOB .. plus at the same time
presenting stories about his life that actually line up 100% with that
DOB.

In the context of David's original efforts and INTENTIONS to research
and write a book called TMOASM .. no matter how much is inaccurate or
wrong about that it doesn't change the TRUTH .. that Paul used false
DOBs for over 30 years and he alone is responsible for that.

The details in the available evidence for knowing intent by Paul is
actually astounding ... there are a hundred different
rationalisations, excuses, explanations, higher spiritual lessons etc
that others have overlaid by cherry-picking and guesswork and at times
sheer desperation to prove david wrong .. and to minimise the actions
that Paul took ... and yours is simply the latest in that conga
line ...

THis thread fwiw is NOT about the Eck Vidya .. or astrology horoscopes
in Newspaper .. nor is it about guesswork .. or musings about what
MIGHT HAVE been .. it is about what IS, and what WAS .. iow hard facts
suported by clear recorded evidecne ... that essentially substanciates
David's orignal *theory* .. sure he got heaps wrong .. and alkso made
numerous GUESSES .. I do not speak to those guesses .. but only to the
EVIDENCE ..

On the evidence today in 2012 .. david was 100% correct on this point
of Paul and his DOB.

How this unfolded in reality .. I do not know.

WHY he did it, I do not know .. and I tell you this truly .. NEITHER
DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THIS PLANET .. bar maybe dear Gail .. but I
seriously doubt that.

All the cherry-picked stories & reasons offered by all that is
supposed to *explain this, or deny this* .. by Doug, Harold, David,
Ford, included .... are NOT TRUE nor accurate .. nor supported by any
known evidence.

They all GUESS .. based on their own BELIEFS primarily .. and by
wearing giant blind spots and cherry picking the evidence and the
anecdotes that FIT their own beliefs ... that is the real truth
here .. mate it has nothing to do with Paul being bugged by people
knowing his DOB .. if it is it proves he was no master if he cant deal
with that kind of BS.

follow me .. and the difference between the subject matter here .. a
historical pov based on KNOWN evidence vs peoples misguided spin that
is really about shoring up their own Beliefs & Opinions no matter
what ... and that's it?

Its about another example of HOW to go about finding out THE WHOLE
TRUTH ... versus believing what our own talking heads keep telling us
MUST be true!

LOL

cheers sean

ps .. I dont give a shit that Paul used a false 1912 and 1922 DOB ...
and I don't give a shit why either ... but that does not change the
fact and the truth of earthly reality pre-1971 that that is exactly
what he did .... it doesn't bother me (only curious to obtain more
evidence from other sources never spoken about as yet) ... and I don't
give a shit if it bothers anyone else either ... because it is
TRUE ;-)

I am a big boy .. I am not Harold who shies away from and openly
admits he still does not like his role as a leader and the
responsibilities that come with it .. like making good judgements and
speaking the truth clearly vs distracting and covering things up he
does not have the leadership metal to face squarely .. I can deal with
the implications of this DOB fact; the unknowns that come from it; and
the many many others that do not match the MYTH no problems at all.

Big call huh ?? <wink>

[Santim Vah]

HI John .. will do as best I can ..

On May 31, 7:04 pm, JR <johnrcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I apologize for goading the histrionics concerning this subject. My
> initial reaction years ago when Menlo Park sent spokespeople to local
> areas when Lane’s message hit the scene is the same now as it was
> then: “DoB etc…? What difference does it make?”
>
> The answer then as it is now is: “Spiritual experience built on solid
> ground and not the quicksand of speculation regardless one’s path sets
> the bench mark for who and what you or I are and can be.”
>

That is all understandable and sits fine with me ... the specific DOB
itself makes no difference to me either .. on the other hand it did
make a differecne to some .. and they didnt need daves opinion to sway
them .. so I try my best to view this beyond my own frame of reference
which is *it doesn't matter to me* ...

all I can say is that .. it isnt the DOB itself which is of interest;
nor what really underpins the issues surrounding .. partly that
surrounds Paul .. but more than that it has always been an issue for
Eckankar decision makers ... and they know it is; and why it is; and
exactly WHY they have ignored it and hoped it would go away.
The *ripple* effect to use a word you'll recognise ..
any decent Lawyer would have given them this advice ... imho ..


> “””””””””””””””””””””””
> [Paragraph 1] John, Seriously, no matter how true or valid your

> comments are here in a general sense, it is irrelevant to the issue

> being discussed here, the simple fact that David did get it right
> about Paul being the one responsible for using a false/fake/wrong DOB.
> “””””””””””””””””””””””
> Yes. Herr Lane did get something. Mostly self-recognition and my
> assessment of “so --what.”
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> [Paragraph 2] On the evidence today in 2012 .. David was 100% correct

> on this point of Paul and his DOB.

> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
> Yes.

You said *yes* that david was 100% correct.

I just wanted to see that *yes* one more time <smile>

Despite his at times quite amateurish research skills .. and the low
level of importance he actually gave/afforded Eckankar in the world of
*religions* he was correct on a number of issues .. and more than that
he informed a whole swag of people about some facts they had no idea
about then.



> And the point you make in your response to me by using [Paragraph
> 3]’s pejorative, “bugged” and [Paragraph 4]’s pejorative “misguided
> spin” takes on the assessment you made in [Paragraph 1] above and the
> assessments you make in [Paragraph 3] & [Paragraph 4] below. In other
> words, whether I or someone else jim-jams around the fact(s) over
> something this trivial, there will always be someone else (you in this
> case) who gets worked up over (in my opinion) nothing, thus making a
> bigger issue out of “nothing” than it was originally, “nothing.”
>

Appearances can be deceiving ... :-)


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> [Paragraph 3] mate it has nothing to do with Paul being bugged by
> people knowing his DOB .. if it is, it proves he was no master if he

> cant deal with that kind of BS.
>

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Herr Lane has already confided it was his intent to discredit Paul
> Twitchell and Eckankar in favor of his path, formerly Paul
> Twitchell’s.  So the point that sticks in stubborn craw is  “just what
> constitutes the meaning of the word ‘master’ when used in context with
> people who listen to and obey said, ‘master.’ In other words, “master
> of whom or what.?” Personally, the word ‘master’ in reference to a
> Spiritual path such as Eckankar’s applies to the person sui juris who
> is sovereign of his or her daily and future affairs.
>
> Projecting the connotations of title used in other religions onto me,
> you or someone else is foolish and eventually cause for embarrassment.
> Your implication in [Paragraph 3] leaves open the door that you would
> consider infallibility to be a requirement for ‘mastership.’ (The
> reason Pope Pius IX declared himself to be infallible had everything
> to do with not being taken as credible in the face of Italy’s quest
> for freedom and liberty which is also why he condemned freedom and
> liberty there and in the US.)
>


I understand the problem .. My meaning for *master* was in its
simplest sense .. master of himself getting thru the day .. I ahve no
doubt that Paul could have handled people doing his numerology had
they known the right date .. and published it to Orion magazine i
1968 ... water off a ducks back imho.

if he couldn't handle that .. well .. what else could he not have
handled as far as the idea of *mastery* goes ... so what people did
with his dob .. is their problem .. not his .. I think he always knew
that.

does that make my meaning a bit better .. i appreciate the meaning of
words in a particular context causes probs for all of us .. newgroups
text issue 101 ; i dont mind clarifying or being asked to. so thanks.


> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
> [Paragraph 4] follow me .. and the difference between the subject

> matter here .. a historical pov based on KNOWN evidence vs peoples
> misguided spin that is really about shoring up their own Beliefs &

> Opinions no matter what ... and that's it? cheers sean
>
>  [Paragraph 5] ps .. I dont give a shit that Paul used a false 1912

> and 1922 DOB ... and I don't give a shit why either ... but that does
> not change the fact and the truth of earthly reality pre-1971 that
> that is exactly what he did .... it doesn't bother me
>

> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Looks like we are on the same book shelf here, pal, [Paragraph 4] and
> [Paragraph 5], but I am NOT on the page in the Spiritual
> Counterfeiter’s little handout which parroted Lane. Are you?
>

NO .. this is one of the main points that matters ... there is a
differecne with noting the true facts and the evidence that does
actually exists VS the spin that DL the SCP . and others from all
sides put on it .. I am tryig NOT to do the same thing ..

as much as possible I want the INFO to sit separately to what ANYONE
THINKS IT MIGHT MEAN ..

Its not my job to tell people what something should MEANS ... there
has been enough people like that for decades ...

still; I have my own opinions that ebb and flow .. just like they
always have all my life .. why anyone would have a need to swallow my
opinions whole; i have no idea .. and do not seek that.


> The page I eventually hold up and rub in a face when needed is the
> same one I was reared by—no person other than myself sets any standard
> for me to define who and what I am.
>

100% fine by me :-)

> Your hat size or Sri Harold's has nothing to do with mine and vice
> versa. Who and what anyone may see themselves as, whether it be Popeye
> master spinach eater or some government flunkie who calls himself a
> psychiatrist, carries no weight with me regardless their social or
> professional esteem. HI? What purpose does the label serve, but for
> the one who wears it? I prefer to use the phrase ‘Consciousness Five’
> to remind them their page of self-definition is not mine. C5, like HI,
> is temporary until I die to accept Sayodiyamidentity which only I will
> know by experience after I am dead in the flesh.
>
> I do my best to make my labels of internal origin APPLY to me and
> leave the labels we are indoctrinated with to the ignorant who need
> them. In other words, that royal “WE” in your pocket or in Sri
> Harold’s is your lunch or his; not my fallible turd.

<smile>

sounds good to me

If I have used the royal *WE* at any time the last cpl days (or in
this reply before ) .. feel free to draw and quarter me ..
(metaphorically speaking only of course)

I speak for no one but myself ...

thx sean

[Santim Vah]

RE

> FACT is one thing.
>
> No one disagrees about Paul's birth date.

Yes they do still disagree.

Why? Because there is still no certainty what it REALLY is!

> I don't know who found his exact birth date first,

No one has found Paul's exact DOB with substantive evidence.

Doug included.

> but from an a.r.e. archive I read today, Doug claims to have found Paul's exact birth date first from the census records.

That is incorrect - not only didn't Doug find the *exact birth date*
in the census records; he didn't claim he did.

>
> SPIN to me means "projections" as Doug politely calls it in the 2003 a.r.e. archived post quoted below.
>
> To me there are two kinds of spin:  1) the more positive spin whereupon one can ruminate on different scenarios that might have taken place and either being neutral and/or giving one the benefit of the doubt when the exact knowledge/fact is unknown.  And 2) negative spin projecting only something bad about whomever one does not know the exact knowledge/motivation about.
>
> Negative spin about Paul Twitchell's motivations is prevalent in Lane's thesis (and Ford's too I presume from excerpts I've read). In the exchange below Lane imagines > the motivation for the 1922 birth date on the marriage license--when  actually he has no idea whether or not Gail knew Paul's actual birth date when they got the marriage license.
>

It doesn't matter what *spin means to one particular person*

Positive or negative - spin is spin

Positive or negative - imagination is imagination

Positive or negative - opinion is opinion

Positive or negative - Projections are still Projections

Whereas Truth is Truth and Facts are Facts .. no matter how anyone
spins it.

spin (spn)
v. spun (spn), spin·ning, spins
v.tr.
1.
a. To draw out and twist (fibers) into thread.

3. To make or produce by or as if by drawing out and twisting.

a. To relate or create: spun tales for the children.

7. To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for
example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: "a
messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of
hatred" (William A. Henry III).

a. A distinctive point of view, emphasis, or interpretation:
"Dryden . . . was adept at putting spin on an apparently neutral
recital of facts" (Robert M. Adams).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spin

====

It doesnt matter what *spin* might mean to anyone in particular ..
what's important is the accepted use of its meaning in a context; and
the intent of the speaker them self.

One can *spin* their own meaning of what spin means; but that does NOT
make it true or relevant for all that does is lead to communication
breakdown and an inability to see the truth of what another is really
saying and intends

SPIN in the context of this thread MEANS a distinctive Point of View,
emphasis, or interpretation .. usually in the context to provide an
INTERPRETATION especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.

David Lane sure did do that; as did Doug and hundreds of Eckists &
others on a.r.e. for 10 years; as did Harold in his various talks
about Paul; as does Doug in his book; as did Paul in his articles in
the early 60's and as did Brad Steiger in his book IMSIAF about Paul.

Positive or negative is merely a *personal judgement* anyway ...
Doug's interpretations as *positive spin* was clearly just more
*negative spin* for others.

another *spin* setup to detract from the essential point of Etznab's
thread about some facts and truths presented by DL long ago .. absent
of spin.

So instead what happens immediately is a reply to try and SPIN the
true information Etznab was sharing and focusing on himself and let
the facts speak for themselves and allow others the space to see that
without the need to rock on in and present a TOTALLY distinctive Point
of View, emphasis, and INTERPRETATION which is TOTALLY disconnected
from *point* of his post and (as per usual) especially meant to sway
public opinion NEGATIVELY towards Etznab and the posting of real,
true, accurate, correct and substantive historical facts to the
group.

Even more than that .. the thread then becomes a venue for spinning
the meaning of the word spin itself.

My own interpretation of that is just another unconscious unaware
effort of Mind that insists that everything FITS into a very small and
FIXED Point of View .. irrespective of the facts or the Truth.


RE

2) negative spin projecting only something bad about whomever one
does not know the exact knowledge/motivation about.

That sounds just like Harold speaking and writing about Darwin Gross,
accusing him of theft and labelling him a black magician and more.

That sounds just like Harold recently speaking about *mini-masters*
but applying the wrong definition of what a *mini-master* usually
means inside of Eckankar.

That sounds just like Harold also labelling a handful of real people
currently in a state of imbalance as a direct result of their
difficulties following the Eck program falsely believing they are the
new LEM or whatever as CORK SCREWS and FULL of THEMSELVES and FULL OF
EGO ... and Being the size of PYGMIES.

Hey, it got a good laugh; but that is one great example of PROJECTING
ONLY SOMETHING BAD onto others.

My spin on this is that it appears a growing pattern where the ONLY
person who is allowed to become unbalanced in this teaching without
being put upon; and the only person who has a valid reason for
becoming unbalanced is Harold himself.

As dear Cher (who has passed on to the far Country now) used to say
here a lot .. beware when you point the finger at others ... for there
are always three other fingers pointing back at yourself.

[Santim Vah]

> .. beware when you point the finger at others ... for there
> are always three other fingers pointing back at yourself.

Quote Easter 2012

"I am saying this straight to you in the audience but as far as
talking to these mini-masters .. someone coined the term for them and
its perfect mini-masters, about the size of pygmies hahaha in a grown
up world but they dont know it; you can talk straight to them but its
like talking to a cork-screw you just cant reach them but i gave it my
best shot right now .."

Then I can't imagine how a *worst shot* would come across like; or
could sound sadder than what came before the above.

Clearly, *they* are simply NOT important even though they are members
of Eckankar and probably in need of some kind of support, care,
acceptance and compassion.

As opposed to being directly and publicly dressed down at a major
seminar in front of their peers.

[Santim Vah]

According to Harold's own autobiographies; he himself turned up at a
seminar before 1981 expecting to be appointed on the 22nd as the next
Living ECK Master. He hung around and hung around .. idled into the
back row to keep a low profile .. stuff like that. Nothing happened ..
he didn't even get to talk with Darwin one on one. Darwin had not said
a word to him about being promoted at the seminar; Harold just assumed
it was time - it wasn't. For years he had discussions with Marge about
becoming the next LEM ... because Paul had told him something about
this at a Soul Reading. I wonder how many others Paul said a similar
thing to, but no one ever got to hear their story.

Every year since the 60's I imagine there has been hundreds of folks
believing they are about to get the nod .. that's what happens when
people get into the psychic arena and the occult, of which Eckankar is
very much about. Things can go a bit haywire. So why mention it now
after 30 years???

Oh, there is a reason and it has nothing to do with the two people he
mentioned directly; but other matters entirely. It's called a shot
across the bow .. it's a private word in a public arena. The same as
Harold's comment about *the Mahanta comes every 5 to a thousand years*
way back in 1984 was a public reply to a private letter from Darwin
but put out in a public venue; as it had nothing to do with *editing
of texts per se* but about trying to proving one's authority and
rightness .. You see, Paul wrote it - so it must be true.

The title of the April talk was MY Mission Renewed.

As RT is said to have said to Doug at one time ... *you have a very
subtle master here in Harold* .. yeah, as subtle and delicate as a
sledge hammer imho.

Personally, I have had enough of the silliness of Eckankar's internal
politics and the mind-games playing and how that is spread through the
organisation and especially how it *spins* information and manipulates
people (with intent) without their knowledge or awareness.

[MichaelT...@yahoo.com]

re various dates of birth for Paul. I have long wondered if it
started when Paul started dating Gail. It wouldn't surprise me if he
lied about his age (40ish being more reasonable than 50-something) so
she would go out with him, and then spun stories to impress her. As
he gained a public profile, it's possible he kept the stories going,
and embellished them, in order be consistent with what he told his
sweetie.

[Santim Vah]

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, "MichaelTurner...@yahoo.com"

Hi Michael,

That's a fair thing to wonder about. In fact it would appear on the
surface as being quite reasonable, if not likely.

This was actually David's original thought as well. However he was
pilloried for that dastardly attack upon Paul's character; and for
making things up.

As you would know from your time here in the 1990's way back, this
idea was commonly held .. or at the very least a possibility.

and especially your comment that -- it's possible he kept the stories
going, and embellished them, in order (to) be consistent with what he
told his sweetie.

For myself, I only started to research the history aspects a couple of
years ago, despite the long time I have been here on and off. imho, I
think that David only had one or two Occam's Razors, whereas I feel
that I may carry at least a couple of dozen. After some time, I came
to a view that it is more likely that what it may be about as per his
July 1963 Man of Parts article was to make an *impression* upon Gail's
parents, and not her.

I can't prove it, but I believe that Gail always knew how old he was,
or rather that he was not born in 1922 or had just turned 40 at his
last birthday.

The main problem with this issue appears to me to much more than Paul
simply creating an impression. It's not so much about his DOB but what
has been made of it; and the lack of credibility in Eckankar ever
being capable of addressing the issue for the benefit of it's Chelas
and the general public. However, it is a complex little issue in and
of itself. It's difficult to work out, and hard to find the records to
say one thing or another. On that point no one has more information
than Eckankar and Gail; the rest is still scattered and yet unknown.
My view is that the necessary information is out there, is available,
and will be found and made public eventually.

In the meantime, there are aspects to this that go beyond the
possibility that Paul merely continued the story in order to be
consistent. I simply cannot see this being an issue for Gail before or
after they were married; as it just doesn't fit imho. The outcome is
actually of him being extremely inconsistent. The available evidence
and my Occam's razor toolbox suggests that Paul was already operating
for at least 3 years (maybe more) under the impression his *official*
DOB was 10/22/1922 before he met Gail in Seattle in late 1962.

IMSIAF for example didn't come out until 1968, meaning they were
together for about 6 years. I cannot rationalise that the information
in that book is all about being consistent for Gail's benefit. There
is something else to this that no one has yet addressed; and on
another likely angle have purposely remained silent about.

Whilst back in 1977 re David; and also with Doug in the early 2000s
there was very restricted access to data; today there is far more
historical information available and that once those records are
accessed, more of the truth will come out. It didn't take long before
I was able to work out where and how this information could be
located; some of which has already fallen into my lap.

And try this one on for size Michael ... I don't think Paul himself
ever really knew his REAL DOB ... his entire life. No one has ever
gone there either.

So, there is far more to this story than meets the eye. A long time
ago the issue got hijacked and twisted beyond anything close to the
reality of it.

But all in good time .. watch this space :-)

Cheers Sean

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:29:43 PM UTC-4, Santim Vah wrote:
> RE

>
> > I don't know who found his exact birth date first,
>
> No one has found Paul's exact DOB with substantive evidence.
>
> Doug included.
>
> > but from an a.r.e. archive I read today, Doug claims to have found Paul's exact birth date first from the census records.
>
> That is incorrect - not only didn't Doug find the *exact birth date*
> in the census records; he didn't claim he did.
>

------

Paul's DOB means nothing to me. I will never engage in slams against Paul and his character about that or anything else, nor against Harold, nor against Eckankar. This path and all three of the LEMs have served a very great purpose and given to us more than perhaps some of us know. I have appreciated their inner teachings and presence and help in my life, and so I don't dissect the human beings for what seems trivial in comparison.

Responding to what you said about Doug and the census, perhaps you've forgotten your post quoting Doug about the 1910 census:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/Doug$20Marman$20$20census/alt.religion.eckankar/1vryEEkWyGQ/Zpjb8MJNpPUJ

Sean Post reply

11/28/03

From Peter Skelskey Chanhassan Villager article

Doug's online response to the Chanhassan Villager article
Posted: Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Article comment by: Doug Marman

I held a series of public dialogues via the Internet with David Lane, who is
the source for most of Ford Johnson's materials about the history of
Eckankar. During this dialogue, I offered quotes from published articles,
first hand accounts and a variety of other public documents to show the
inaccuracies in much of Lane's research. For example, I was the first one to
make public the actual birth date of Paul Twitchell based on records of the
1910 census..............

------

[Santim Vah]

On Jun 1, 11:12 am, Jasmyn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:29:43 PM UTC-4, Santim Vah wrote:
> > RE
>
> > > I don't know who found his exact birth date first,
>
> > No one has found Paul's exact DOB with substantive evidence.
>
> > Doug included.
>
> > > but from an a.r.e. archive I read today, Doug claims to have found Paul's exact birth date first from the census records.
>
> > That is incorrect - not only didn't Doug find the *exact birth date*
> > in the census records; he didn't claim he did.
>
> ------
>
> Paul's DOB means nothing to me.

Me neither.

> I will never engage in slams against Paul and his character about that or anything else, nor against Harold, nor against Eckankar.

Me neither.

> This path and all three of the LEMs have served a very great purpose and given to us more than perhaps some of us know. I have appreciated their inner teachings > and presence and help in my life, and so I don't dissect the human beings for what seems trivial in comparison.

Me neither.

>
> Responding to what you said about Doug and the census, perhaps you've forgotten your post quoting Doug about the 1910 census:
>

> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.relig...

>
> Sean  Post reply
>
> 11/28/03
>
> From Peter Skelskey Chanhassan Villager article
>
> Doug's online response to the Chanhassan Villager article
> Posted: Tuesday, November 25, 2003
> Article comment by: Doug Marman
>
> I held a series of public dialogues via the Internet with David Lane, who is
> the source for most of Ford Johnson's materials about the history of
> Eckankar. During this dialogue, I offered quotes from published articles,
> first hand accounts and a variety of other public documents to show the
> inaccuracies in much of Lane's research. For example, I was the first one to
> make public the actual birth date of Paul Twitchell based on records of the
> 1910 census..............
>
> ------

Doug was wrong. It's not the end of the world.

I don't remember what I wrote in that thread in 2003 and I am NOT
going to read it now.

I don't need to read it, as it is being used as a club.

I have learnt a lot more since 2003.

I have seen a lot more direct factual true and correct facts and
evidence since 2003.

I am more aware, and more informed than I was in 2003 - in fact I am
more informed today than I was yesterday.

When the FACTS change, when the Truth changes, when my understanding
changes, THEN I change my personal views accordingly.

JUST LIKE PAUL TWITCHELL DID THROUGH THE 1960's

But I never hang on to them; never get so ATTACHED TO THEM; as if my
life depended on my own opinions - for it doesn't.

Others opinions, especially their poorly formed ones and gross errors
in understanding, count even less than my own.

<shrug>

I can't help this Poster, only they can. I simply wish them well with
that, and say Baraka Bashad.

All my replies here are for the benefit of others who may read this
group.

Toltec wisdom - Agreement 2.

"Don't take anything personally - Nothing others do is because of
you."

[MichaelT...@yahoo.com]

On May 31, 6:12 pm, Jasmyn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:29:43 PM UTC-4, Santim Vah wrote:
> > RE
>
> > > I don't know who found his exact birth date first,
>
> > No one has found Paul's exact DOB with substantive evidence.
>
> > Doug included.
>
> > > but from an a.r.e. archive I read today, Doug claims to have found Paul's exact birth date first from the census records.
>
> > That is incorrect - not only didn't Doug find the *exact birth date*
> > in the census records; he didn't claim he did.
>
> ------
>
> Paul's DOB means nothing to me.  I will never engage in slams against Paul and his character about that or anything else, nor against Harold, nor against Eckankar. This path and all three of the LEMs have served a very great purpose and given to us more than perhaps some of us know. I have appreciated their inner teachings and presence and help in my life, and so I don't dissect the human beings for what seems trivial in comparison.
>
> Responding to what you said about Doug and the census, perhaps you've forgotten your post quoting Doug about the 1910 census:
>

> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.relig...

>
> Sean  Post reply
>
> 11/28/03
>
> From Peter Skelskey Chanhassan Villager article
>
> Doug's online response to the Chanhassan Villager article
> Posted: Tuesday, November 25, 2003
> Article comment by: Doug Marman
>
> I held a series of public dialogues via the Internet with David Lane, who is
> the source for most of Ford Johnson's materials about the history of
> Eckankar. During this dialogue, I offered quotes from published articles,
> first hand accounts and a variety of other public documents to show the
> inaccuracies in much of Lane's research. For example, I was the first one to
> make public the actual birth date of Paul Twitchell based on records of the
> 1910 census..............
>
> ------

I would never slam Paul either, Jasmyn. At the same time, I do think
a path premised upon spiritual truth (SAT) needs to also be
historically accurate. Sublimating honesty to church doctrine (and
engage in historical revisionism) seems to me to violate the very
premise of SAT.

Peace,

Michael

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

<SNIP>

>
> Peace,

????????

> Michael


Sri Harold Klemp is the Living ECK Master of ECKANKAR. I think he did a good job assessing and setting the record straight:

The Legacy of Paul Twitchell:
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/index.html

[Santim Vah]

>
> Sri Harold Klemp is the Living ECK Master of ECKANKAR.  I think he did a good job assessing and setting the record straight:
>
> The Legacy of Paul Twitchell:http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/index.html

Most people are simply are unqualified to make such such judgements
primarily due a lack or true knowledge.

I think Harold has done a lousy job assessing and setting the record
straight.

I think Harold doesn't even know what setting the record straight
would even look like.

In fact he and all the Eckankar Boards since 17th August 1983 have
abdicated their responsibilities to research the facts and speak Truth
about Paul, about Darwin, about Kirpal, about Sudar Singh, and the
name redactions, about the editing and the sources of Paul's writings,
and WHY Paul did things the way he did them .. and about many more
issues.

In fact he has not set anything straight, instead consciously choosing
to ignore and side step everything that has caused disrupture in the
membership, caused conflict within the membership and Organisational
folks since he took over; iow very REAL the issues that underpin the
churning of the membership that is accelerating as we speak.

In fact of all the BIG issues he has set nothing straight. Not one
thing. And made no genuine and practical efforts to research the
truth and report that to the membership and the public.

The website link and the books of Eckankar are chock full FALSE
information that has not been corrected; not been set straight. Some
of it are his own words that are obviously and provably false.

Rather the opposite, Harold has been responsible for maintaining a
wall of silence about Paul's life, and the REAL cause for the split
with Darwin since 1983.

The affidavits given by Harold and others regarding Darwin are not the
whole truth.

Even on the Darwin Gross issue, and the Letters to Gail 3 issue .. in
ALL Harold's writings he has not been telling the whole truth as he
knows it to be.

I know that for certain .. there is no doubt Harold has not told the
Truth on many scores. It's a very very long list. .

It is as simple as that.

And it is as clear as day.

Furthermore Gail herself falls into the exact same box.

Furthermore on the spiritual aspects alone within Eckankar .. there is
a conga line of Higher Imitates within Eckankar who joined during
Paul's time or soon after
Darwin was the Master (many of whom were on life memberships) who have
been out there speaking with chelas here and there the COMPLETE
OPPOSITE as to the meanings of the teachings as given out by Harold
Klemp.

On key aspects of the doctrine as found in Harold's talks, in the
books and in Harold's discourses especially the Master series .. these
Higher Initiates actually present a totally different doctrine that
Harold's.

One of the most critical spokes people in Eckankar about Paul has been
Harold Klemp himself. When Harold found out about some aspects of Paul
Twitchell he couldn't handle it. Or know what was really true or not;
and he is still in this utterly unresolved position; and yet still
does NOTHING.

Nothing written on the Eckankar website or in the books regarding Paul
and the teachings he gave out before 1983 should be taken as reliable
knowledge.

It is provably false information; and more than this Harold Klemp
knows it is.

And does nothing.

Harold's *mission* has been renewed because all of this is actually
his own karmic baggage now left unresolved; and the Lords have karma
seem to have agreed that he is going no where without addressing it ..
he is not being allowed to ignore his own actions for 30 plus years
and then leave this MESS to the next guy.

There have been repeated opportunities for Harold to speak the Truth
and to take action to find the truth.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. When Eckankar finally ends up on
a TV expose doco in America it will not be pretty for Harold and the
membership.

Well meaning people suggest that Harold's first job is to protect
Eckankar the organisation; and that is why he *smoothed things over*
in 1983, and then later came out and spoke several times about Paul in
his *best* efforts to clarify Paul's life history and be honest.

A fair hope imho. Fact is the Organisation has been driven over a
cliff now; and the Truth with it; as the years of silence, side-spin,
and inaction mount up.

In the meantime ignorance is bliss for those who imagine everything is
sweet as in the Eckankar world. It isn't. It's been rotting from the
inside out for decades, and all that time has been under Harold's
watch. He is the Mahanta the Living Eck master, and Eckankar is 100%
his own responsibility.

It's a Hierarchy remember? Anyone who has ever come close to getting
some basic Truths through to him have been totally burnt and pushed
out of the inner circle forthwith; and then more often than not
criticised and put down at the next seminar .. but of course oh so
subtlety the everyday Chela has no idea what just happened as Harold
smiles happily away.

Here's an Eck Vidya prediction ... Harold's talk at Easter 2012 will
never see the light of day as a text, an audio or as a video DVD to be
sold to the chelas.

And what is sad about that is that, it didn't have to be this way.
Repeated opportunities have been presented to take a different
approach and make different choices.

Overall, this issue of history and Paul comes down to one keyword in
regard the leadership of Eckankar - incompetence.

That's not meant as a criticism nor a put down just for its own sake;
but a true reflection of the reality of it.

There is a truism within Business Management & Leadership dynamics
(backed up by Psychology Science); and that is that all eventually
rise to their level of incompetence.

[Santim Vah]

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, "MichaelTurner...@yahoo.com"
<MichaelTurner...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Michael,

there is a shorter option worthy of consideration I believe.

IF all it is was, as simple as you say above, then there is absolutely
NO valid reason (human or spiritual) for that not to said by her or
Harold publicly.

That it has NOT been said is telling.

That Gail's words have NOT been included in Doug's book despite Doug
being a personal friend of hers and Pattis speaks volumes to me, and
those a little more switched on to human nature and how things tend to
work in this mundane world of human beings.

Gail's silence is no accident. It is not some spiritual test for
Eckists or her either.

I do not know what the real truth is on every score.

But when I see an apple, I can recognise it as being .. well, an
apple.

Even if others cannot, I will still call it an apple and not pretend
it is an alien spaceship captained by Gakko from Venus just because
someone else told me that is what it is. :-)

thx for your comments, and all your other posts here, .. it is nice to
read straight self-aware unaffected comments absent of convoluted
spin. :-)

[Santim Vah]

> Sri Harold Klemp is the Living ECK Master of ECKANKAR.  I think he did a good job assessing and setting the record straight:
>
> The Legacy of Paul Twitchell:http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/index.html

I have no idea at what spiritual level Harold Klemp may be at today or
during the last 31 years since Darwin promoted him to be a second
Living Eck Master in 1981.

And to me it does not matter. It is what it is.

Until people like this poster are capable of working out that the
reported God-Realisation experience as given my Harold Klemp in his
autobiography is not actually a true and valid God-Realisation
experience at all, instead being a temporary psychotic break from the
stirring up of the psychic forces upon the mind (and of his own
making), then there is very little chance that they can work much else
out for themselves.

Let alone comprehending what *setting the record straight* regarding
the history of Paul's life and the making of Eckankar in 1965 to today
might actually entail in the real world.

As Paul reiterated time and again, the real essence of what he was
attempting to convey in his *program* was that his ECK is an
individual spiritual path. To therefore judge *the path* according to
the beliefs, actions or behaviours of any one individual on that path
including the leader, is fraught with problems for the individual.

Trust your own instincts.

[Santim Vah]

> Trust your own instincts.

More info?

Harold Klemp's reported God realisation experience occurred before
Paul Twitchell departed this earth in 1971.

This means that at that time he was either still a second initiate, or
at most a 3rd Initiate.

This time is important in the history of Eckankar because it is during
this period that Eckankar changed from being an Inc. to becoming a
Non_profit Religious Organisation.

An event which Patti Simpson recalled to the very last days of her
life, and what Paul Twitchell had said to her about it. And that is
that he totally disagreed with that decision when he was over-ruled by
the then board members who sided with Dr Bluth at the time and NOT
Paul himself.

Patti still saw this *event* as critical to understanding Paul and
Eckankar. As she recalls in Feb 2011 barely a few weeks before she
passed away:

QUOTE:
If I were to guess about what Paul had in mind, I think it was a
watershed moment when in the 1960's, the Eckankar Board, over Paul's
objection, voted to become a non-profit. I remember the Bluths coming
back from the meeting ecstatic that they got this issue passed. They
were really crowing. When I talked next to Paul I said, "I heard the
Board over-rode you and got the Non-Profit passed. He was very still,
then said, "They will be sorry some day." Whoever heard of someone
who wanted to pay taxes?
Love to you, Patti
FULL TEXT HERE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WV7rMN4SmLhYRYbYVWCJB5KrlogfXu2Qny7p3TejE5k/edit

But such matters cannot be looked at in isolation. One really needs
far more information that a one off quote in order to comprehend life
in its fullest context. Patti is the fount of all knowledge, and she
had her own barrows she liked to present to others. IOW it was her own
individual way of seeing things.

One way is not enough to get at the truth of matters.

In this regard I will then turn to Marge Klemp for some CONFIRMATION
about what was the PRIMARY purpose in Eckankar going NON-PPROFIT circa
1969+; and the truth to the mundane reason behind this move by Dr
Bluth and others in the *leadership circles* of that time.

Changing to a Non-Profit Religious Organisation
20:00
[...] and we would get letters across our desk where people were
being, ah, put
in, put in ah, put in asylums, because, by their families, because
they were having
these experiences ..... and ah finally ah Paul had to incorporate ah
Eckankar as a
Non-Profit Religious Organization ... and one of the reasons was well
we needed
protection, because, yeah [...]

[cut off by Jeffery onto] ... do you think Paul today, if he was
looking at it, would be surprised
about having a Temple and a worldwide Religious status? Do you think
it was in his mind?

20:45
[...] I think it was , he didn't start out with that in mind ... but I
think once he
could see what was happening, and what was going on I don't think it
would have
surprised him. […]

(SV note - this next bit is known as a DISTRACTION away from what had
just been admitted to BY ACCIDENT, due to Marge not thinking and not
realising beforehand what in FACT she was giving out by what she said)

21:15
[...] and another thing ... we are finding an awful lot about is other
dimensions,
our scientists are actually finding parallel universes [...] now, we
were talking
about this long before ... but Albert Einstein was working on this too
[...] and a lot
of people have forgotten that it was Albert that said: "A miracle is a
changed
state of consciousness" [...]

Quote text here with a link to the entire COMPLETE conversation IN
AUDIO.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0KObtCQpPKbN2ZjOTRmZTYtYmZlYy00ZDU1LTg3YzMtMjcwMjRmYzI2MDRk/edit

Please NOTE, that before Marge said this in 2009 .. the TRUTH of this
matter had been kept private/secret/covered up/side-stepped (don't
care how you say it) from Chelas, researchers, and the Public for
about 40 years.

Now, please note, that circa this same time frame.. late 60's and
70-71, Harold Klemp ALSO ended up in an *asylum* due to his extreme
and mentally unbalanced behaviour and state of mind.

Now, Eckists only know about Harold's experience for the simple matter
that he is a public figure who told his own story.

You do NOT know about all the many many others from 1966 thru to today
who have also done as much if not worse than *jumping off a bridge
into ice water in the middle of winter* imagining that this is all a
part of the greatest spiritual teachings on this earth.

Nor have any of you heard of any of the reports coming in by Chelas
and their families etc that Marge Klemp was alluding to from her own
FIRST-PERSON direct experience and knowledge.

See?

There's is always more to the story ... now would be a good time go
look at how Harold Klemp himself over the last 31 years has explained
"the high spiritual reasons" that Eckankar needed to go NOT-For-Profit
as a Religious organisation.

If anyone wants to believe that the above is mere cherry-picking and
making unfounded assumptions not based on the facts or real evidence,
I'd suggest that they do not also assume that the above true
information is the ONLY "supporting evidence" in existence today.

That would be just plain silly, imho.


===

In summary about a larger issue that surround sthis matter of the
history about Paul and Eckankar.

First, I am the first person to admit that the work done originally by
David Lane is far removed from being fully complete, accurate or
reliable. Truth is he barely scratched the surface of the history, and
he had no way of being able to either check his assumptions.

His essential claim however, which Doug Marman has repeatedly
suggested was wrong .. about a Cover Up of the historical truth of
matters by Eckankar people in positions of authority, is actually
true.

He just didn't HAVE the actual evidence at the time to support such a
wild claim - THAT was his come-uppence, but I believe he has learnt
from the experience; and he himself has said he would go about it in
an entirely different way than he did, that he did make mistakes in
fact and in judgement about what things meant, and that he longer
believes that everything he wrote was true or correct. He would have
researched a lot more than he did.

At least he has been man enough and spiritually wise enough to admit.

That aside, there is a huge difference between my approach to
*history* and David Lane's, and Harold Klemp's and Doug Marman's, and
everyone else's imho.

When I quote something important, when I am cherry-picking something
that I believe is factual evidence that supports a more accurate view
of the TRUE History, then I also provide everyone with the exact same
FACTUAL SOURCE MATERIALS that I am relying upon.

I am fully open. I do not cherry-pick whilst keeping covered up the
FULL & FRANK material upon which I am PARTLY relying upon to tell me
that this material is TRUE and worthy of being shared with others.

I may form different conclusions based upon the same *facts*; but I do
NOT WITH HOLD THE ENTIRE SOURCE MATERIAL FROM OTHERS BY DESIGN AND
WITH INTENT.

I recommend that this point above ALL needs to be seriously taken into
contemplation in its fullest possible context.

IF you are one who is actually interested in Truth .. and the WHOLE
truth and how to deal with it with awareness and self-responsibility.

Thx Sean

=============

PS

Recommended reading.

IMSIAF - Paul speaking on page 20 as he **points a finger** at
Transcendental meditation.

Look for the word Schizophrenia and also *flabby-minded* people in
relation to delving into the psychic forces and that it is NOT TO BE
FOOLED WITH.

AND REMEMBER THIS .. people like Patti Simpson were very close to
Paul, in his presence, and it was Paul who supported and guided her
personally.

Trusting in Paul in the 1960's as being the real expert is one thing.

Trusting your local HI or RESA or a quarterly letter from Harold .. or
whom ever is *equivalent*, that is another thing entirely.

Then ask yourself another question like: This RESA structure and the
individuals who serve in your local Satsang, in your own personal
direct experience from your own personal observations and knowledge,
is that structure serving the Chelas in the area, especially those
that LIKE HAROLD get very unbalanced; or is it serving the corpoarte
interests of Eckankar?

It's your own experience, and as such YOU get to decide the truth of
this.

And you may change your mind, change your opinion at any moment new
evidence or a new awareness comes thru.

[Santim Vah]

>
> But such matters cannot be looked at in isolation. One really needs
> far more information that a one off quote in order to comprehend life
> in its fullest context. Patti is the fount of all knowledge, and she
> had her own barrows she liked to present to others. IOW it was her own
> individual way of seeing things.
>
> One way is not enough to get at the truth of matters.
>

typos correction ..

Patti is NOT the fount of ALL knowledge, ... etc

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

------

About the things this poster said, I put my trust in the Mahanta the Living ECK Master as knowing more than I do, or than *any* of us know, about the past as well as what the future has in store.

For the spiritual students of Eckankar I'd say check things out for yourself, do the spiritual exercises, open yourself to Spirit, be open to meeting ECK Masters and ask for that experience...that has worked for me for many decades and for the many Eckists who do the spiritual exercises and remain close to the Mahanta.

For those interested in a response to the critics' take:
Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm

------

[Santim Vah]

> ------
>
> About the things this poster said, I put my trust in the Mahanta the Living ECK Master as knowing more than I do, or than *any* of us know, about the past as well as what the future has in store.
>
> For the spiritual students of Eckankar I'd say check things out for yourself, do the spiritual exercises, open yourself to Spirit, be open to meeting ECK Masters and ask for that experience...that has worked for me for many decades and for the many Eckists who do the spiritual exercises and remain close to the Mahanta.
>
> For those interested in a response to the critics' take:
> Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman:http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
>
> ------

<SIGH>

Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm

Try Chapter 11

QUOTE
However, perhaps the most significant problem with David's argument
that Paul was trying to cover up his past, came after I read the
following post on David's ECKANKAR newsgroup, written by an ECKist who
posted under the name of TuzaHu:

I got in Eckankar when I was in the 8th grade. A local neighbor
introduced me to the teaching who knew Paul back in the old days with
Kirpal Singh (Vandella Walker) who, at the time was the highest
initiate in ECK (a 7th at the time). Through Vandella I got to spend a
lot of time with Paul...

This was when I was a new Eckist in Ohio. I got in Eck in 1968
and can remember when Paul had a good deal of hair left!!!

After reading this, I then remembered how many of the early
ECKists had followed Paul from Kirpal's group and from L. Ron
Hubbard's group. The idea of Paul trying to cover up or deny his
previous associations with those teachers is ridiculous. There were
way too many in ECK who knew all about Paul's past. David's whole
theory just doesn't work.

TuzaHu went on to write some other interesting things about the
interesting time he spent with Camille Ballowe, Paul's first wife:

Off the top of my head I can recall a few interesting things. She
and Paul dated in High School...

Paul also was involved in the beginning of Scientology and wanted
to teach Soul Travel but L. Ron would have nothing to do with it. [I
have heard this same thing from a number of old timers, even though
David refuses to accept it. DM.]

Paul was a promoter for a while with actor Jimmy Durante and
baseball star Dizzy Dean...Paul was a born promoter...

Paul was practicing forms of Astral Projection, as it sounds from
his early years according to her. He would sit for hours at the
kitchen table staring into a flame from an oil lamp he had. He did
that for years, hours on end. He later wrote and published a song that
was recorded called "the Lamp."

According to her Paul had a deep spiritual side, he read the
Bible almost every day for many years along with other spiritual
books. His interest in out of the body movement was his main interest,
but little was written about it. He called it dreamwalking at the
time. He wanted to control and teach it from the time they married.

This information completely undermines the idea that David has
tried to promote; that Paul learned out of the body travel from Swami
Premananda and Kirpal Singh, in the 50's. In fact, Paul had always
been interested in spiritual truth, as Camille said, even in his
teens.

http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Eleven.htm

====

Sounds good right?

OK, well let's see what I know about this.

TuzaHu also went by another name DavidP111 here on a.r.e. long ago
now.

The very same skills were used to locate who this person actually was;
very much the same way that I went about finding out who exactly
Jasmyn is, where she lives ie NE USA, her last job at a nearby
University, now retired, and all that jazz. TuzaHu comes by way of
Arizona.

IN fact, I have even had some private conversations with Doug about
this very * character* before his book was published. TuzaHu has
posted all manner of *information* on various groups over the years.

This *character* has made a great number of claims; but more than that
he has repeatedly stated that he had audio recordings (and text notes)
of his conversations with Camille (pal's wife), with Brad Steiger, and
even with Gail (if my memory is correct there) Doesn't matter .. what
I found is archived.

Of course none of this supposedly *supporting evidence* for his
various opinions and personal knowledge has EVER been put up in the
public domain; or shared privately within established detractor
groups, or with David Lane.

Had it been, I can assure you that it would not be a *secret* still
today. :-)

And yet, here we see that Doug is *quoting* him directly AS IF he has
credible *inside/personal* knowledge that can be relied upon. I state
that I am not aware of ANY degree of confirmation or verification
being made by anyone at anytime and that would include Doug himself.
(unless something like this has happened fairly recently.

So what? A good question. let me answer that.

You will notice in the quoted text above from Doug's website that
"Jasmyn" has been repeatedly promoting here and to other Eckists
directly, has a number of spaces noted as "....".

Please allow me to add a few other direct quotes from the exact same
POST that Doug is quoting from ... then feel free to sit in wonder,
and wonder why the SELECTED CHERRY-PICKING ONLY?

I have written transcrips of my time with Paul's first wife at the
time, someplace in storage, also have many hours of tape of interview
with her.

Off the top of my head I can recall a few interesting things.

Paul was sterile .......

..... he LOVED women and lots of them.

He dated Hollywood starlett ... while married to Camille. She put up a
lot
of his running around.

Paul had several affairs there with the Kirpal Singh group.

Paul was a promoter for a while with actor Jimmy Durante and baseball
star Dizzy Dean...whom fired Paul after he absconded with some
cash...at least Dizzy accused him of that...

Paul was a born promoter. His wife told me that Paul would attend
county fairs and pay to have himself paged so people would hear his
name.

She gave me a post card Paul had made up in the early 1940's of a
lavish mansion...printed on the front was "home of Paul Twitchell
American Author" of course, Paul had never lived there.

Paul never traveled out of the USA except to go the the Canadian side
of Niagara Falls...so he never did go to India..she read In My Soul
and
just laughted..."that's Paul," she would say!!!!

She finally had it out with Paul over ... she had put up with his
womanizing for long enough.

Paul's favorite phrase to say was, "Razamataz.." Kind of sounds
like Rebazar Tarzs, huh???

===

Now the way I see it is this .. IF TuzaHu is a in fact a RELIABLE
first-hand witness to people who knew Paul, besides himself, then why
would Doug only choose barely a few lines out of hundreds of such
messages like this?

As a historical & biographical researcher with a good reputation, it
leads me to wonder what checks, if any, were done by Doug to TEST the
credibility of the witness whom he is quoting from directly?

And if none have been done, if direct contact with TuzaHu by Doug to
check on his veracity not been done, if no audio recording has been
heard by Doug himself, then the quotes used as well as the CONCLUSIONS
that Doug is also simultaneously creating in this chapter also lack
credibility, and need to be seriously brought into question.

It appears to me that Doug chose to not clearly * reference* his
quotes here, so that others are NOT able to see for themselves the
*entire full and complete* material upon which he is basing his
opinions on.

The obvious questions then also arise.

What else do the readers of the website being endlessly promoted by
Jasmyn not know about Doug's *sources*, and therefore how reliable is
the work partially or as a whole if this is an example of it?

===

Lastly, there are many more quotes I could provide about TuzaHu's
writings.

Personally I formed my own opinion that the material was *unreliable*
for many reasons. That is not saying what he says is true or false;
for I do not know.

What I do know, is that his many claims have never been verified by
anyone or in any practical way that I am aware of.

If anyone is aware of some degree of confirmation about the validity
of his claims then please do tell. I for one would like to hear and or
see the content included in these tapes and texts he is said to have
made himself.

By the same token, despite any issues regarding Doug's research and
his final book, I still very much see it as a very worthy
accomplishment. Overall, the volume of real, true and verifiable
historical information contained in it goes far beyond any other work
ever done on the life of Paul by anyone.

But I recommend that readers do not mis-interpret the title as if it
means .. within these pages is contained the whole truth about Paul
Twitchell .. for it does not.

And Doug never claimed that himself either. Rather the title is
about .. his best advice & examples from experience about the human
process of each individual who is serious about discovering the *whole
truth* for themselves and the pitfalls that arise along the way. On
that score, it is a pretty good effort few could match.

Thx Sean

[Santim Vah]

> About the things this poster said, I put my trust in the Mahanta the Living ECK Master as knowing more than I do, or than *any* of us know, about the past as well as what the future has in store.
>

" My greatest problem with people is dealing, not with skeptics or non
believers, but with those with failure-consciousness. A large number
of people are imbued with feelings of inadequacy. This leads to
cruelty, unhappiness, vanity, greed and many other ills of life.
Little wonder, then, at the idea that all we need in this life to make
things right is wealth and opulence which take care of the body and
senses. So many persons have become rich and famous and have ridden
the waves of popularity only to find that something was still escaping
them, for the feeling of inadequacy was still there. This was the lack
of God, the lack of true sincerity in life, which comes from leaning
upon the Supreme Deity and nothing else. Until one learns to do this,
the feeling of inadequacy will prevail."

PAUL TWITCHELL - The Kandur

[Santim Vah]

>
> About the things this poster said, I put my trust in the Mahanta the Living ECK Master as knowing more than I do, or than *any* of us know, about the past as well as what the future has in store.
>
> For the spiritual students of Eckankar I'd say check things out for yourself, do the spiritual exercises, open yourself to Spirit, be open to meeting ECK Masters and ask for that experience...that has worked for me for many decades and for the many Eckists who do the spiritual exercises and remain close to the Mahanta.
>

" Truth is for those who take the time and trouble to seek it out. The
spiritual traveller knows of the hidden side of God which has existed
as a knowledge distinct from the science and philosophy of those who
have written the sacred scriptures or caused their disciples to record
their masters’s words. Why are those who know or possess this
knowledge unwilling to let it pass into general circulation for the
sake of a better and more successful struggle against deceit, evil and
ignorance? Knowledge is never concealed from the eyes of the masses.
The fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want
knowledge; they refuse their share of it and do not even take the
rations allotted to them."

Paul Twitchell - The Flute of God

[Etznab]

[Etznab]

Keyword "JOB" ... IMHO.

Harold was employed by Eckankar at the time and had an employment agreement. Yes?

See: Trade secrets section near bottom of p. 7 here.

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubtitleAcss.aspx?SubtitleNo=22

***

Yes indeed. "GOOD JOB", Harold.

[Etznab]

Did somebody ask question about "serving the corporate interests"?

Quoting from

Changing to a Non-Profit Religious Organisation
20:00
[...] and we would get letters across our desk where people were
being, ah, put in, put in ah, put in asylums, because, by their families, because they were having these experiences ..... and ah finally ah Paul had to incorporate ah Eckankar as a Non-Profit Religious Organization ... and one of the reasons was well we needed
protection, because, yeah [...]

[cut off by Jeffery onto] ... do you think Paul today, if he was
looking at it, would be surprised about having a Temple and a worldwide Religious status? Do you think it was in his mind?

***

Serving corporate interests ... Maybe?

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:05:31 AM UTC-4, Santim Vah wrote:
> > ------
> >
> > About the things this poster said, I put my trust in the Mahanta the Living ECK Master as knowing more than I do, or than *any* of us know, about the past as well as what the future has in store.
> >
> > For the spiritual students of Eckankar I'd say check things out for yourself, do the spiritual exercises, open yourself to Spirit, be open to meeting ECK Masters and ask for that experience...that has worked for me for many decades and for the many Eckists who do the spiritual exercises and remain close to the Mahanta.
> >
> > For those interested in a response to the critics' take:
> > Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman:http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
> >
> > ------
>
> <SIGH>
>
> Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, by Doug Marman:
> http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
>
> Try Chapter 11
>
> QUOTE

<snip>

> The very same skills were used to locate who this person actually was;
> very much the same way that I went about finding out who exactly
> Jasmyn is, where she lives ie NE USA, her last job at a nearby
> University, now retired, and all that jazz. TuzaHu comes by way of
> Arizona.
>

Not very good skills there, who you must think I am is wrong because that's false info.

[Jasm...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 11:47:54 PM UTC-4, Jasm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>...I put my trust in the Mahanta the Living ECK Master as knowing more than I do, or than *any* of us know, about the past as well as what the future has in store.

>
> For the spiritual students of Eckankar I'd say check things out for yourself, do the spiritual exercises, open yourself to Spirit, be open to meeting ECK Masters and ask for that experience...that has worked for me for many decades and for the many Eckists who do the spiritual exercises and remain close to the Mahanta.

Excerpt from
How to Find God, Mahanta Transcripts, Book 2, by Harold Klemp, page 20:

A woman from a Sunbelt state of the U.S. tells of the time she met Wah Z in a San Francisco hotel lobby. It was the mid-1950s. That was some twenty-five years before he took his place as the spiritual head of Eckankar.

A stranger had handed her a copy of ECKANKAR--The Key to Secret Worlds by Paul Twitchell. But the book held nothing for her. True, parts of it did support her views on life, but overall she saw little value in it. The stranger had not revealed his identity. And soon, every trace of this incident washed from her conscious mind. It was years later before she recognized him.

Please note, ECKANKAR--The Key to Secret Worlds was first published in 1969, about fifteen years after she'd met the stranger in the hotel lobby.

Thirty years after that occasion, in the mid-1980s, she learned his name at an Eckankar meeting. His face was on a book jacket. Only then did she recognize today's Living ECK Master.

The man looked the same as she remembered him in the San Francisco hotel lobby way back in the 1950s. The memory of that meeting with the Spiritual Traveler rushed in.

It took years of spiritual preparation before her Spiritual Eye opened.

---

Eckankar website:
http://www.eckankar.org/

[Santim Vah]

Bollocks.

Time to work out the difference between the real *mahanta* and the man
holding a worldly title as the Mahanta. IT is not the same thing. Time
to stop pretending it is.

[Santim Vah]

No, you are wrong yet again, I have excellent skills Jasmyn, I made
you respond and forced you speak to me directly. You even used the
word *you* .. and you are so unaware that you didn't realise what was
REALLY going on here. Where was all your inner insight? Where was the
tip off from your own version of *belief* in the eck masters in this
case? Didn't they give you a heads up? Nope!

Which brings me to point #2 as planned.

Jasmyn you keep pushing Doug's online book and TWT, in the same post
which includes quotes by Harold whilst having no idea that Harold
wants nothing to do with Doug's book, with Doug, and does not support
what Doug did. Harold refuses to even communicate with Doug Marman
personally, refuses to endorse the book or the approach taken by
Doug. Jasmyn, you are clueless to the fact that there are major
aspects in Doug's works that totally disagrees with the Harold's own
teachings that he gives out. Completely diametrically opposed in fact.
What does harold do about this? Harold just applies his usual MO - he
ignores him and the information given by Doug outright.

This MO continues to the pattern of Harold saying things at eck
seminars and in his newsletters about the ideas of those he disagrees
with - by leaving behind little subtle hints to that person, in this
case Doug, by Harold re-framing what he would really like to say into
some other story or comments on stage. AS usual you and most others
miss it entirely as you're so besotted with Harold who can do no wrong
and not ever make a mistake. No matter how many car accidents he might
have. It's never him, it's always the EK "speaking to him"and telling
him how to run his mission, or how to stop working 7 days a week for
10 years because he can't work it out for himself by doing a Spiritual
Exercise, or seeking out a time-management expert to teach him the
basics of life.

Meanwhile he puts shots across the bow about other people who think
they are the new Living Eck Master, and that he isn't going anywhere -
because his mission has been renewed by slipping on black ice he
cannot see, outside a sound-proof home. Apparently waking dreams only
apply to everyone else, as he mentions that he couldn't want to look
at himself in the mirror in the hospital bathroom.

Then in the same talk speaks about women not being good enough to be
the living eck master - which is another shot across the bow regarding
Doug's article on Pattie Simpson being asked to take over as the
LIVING ECK MASTER in 1971.

Several years ago now, at his return to the live stage, he played the
same type of number on Peter Skelsky. No one got it, but Peter sure
did. It was another classic public put down! Cute, but very
manipulative and egotistical.

Harold has repeatedly broken his own standards of behaviour that he
lays down upon everyone else, especially in his talks. More than that
he repeatedly broken foundational principles and Spiritual Law of
Eckankar - by suggesting) he as speaking about another persons past
lives (Queen Elizabeth 2) - meaning according to Eckankar Philosophy
that he investigated her own Soul records without her permission, and
then spoke about her publicly.

But you don't get that either - how could the Mahanta do anything
*wrong* and break his own Spiritual Law and Ideals???

Yet the thousands of incompetent High Initiates like yourself do not
hear or see a thing .. so blinded and easily manipulated have you
become by your own faux beliefs and lack of real inner contact and
insights.

which brings me to point #3

You say you have had many experiences with the spiritual guide known
to you as *Rebazar Tarzs*. And yet, how come you do not know that in
his last life he was in fact a MUSLIM on this planet? Didn't he tell
you? Didn't Harold Klemp or Wah Z tell you yet? What do you really
know Jasmyn?

The principles, the ideals, and the details put out by Doug and not
the same as what Harold has been putting out for a very long time. You
cannot serve two masters jasmyn. Make up your mind whose principles
you agree with, for I tell you that Harold does NOT agree with Doug,
so then why, if you and others support Harold do you keep presenting
both themes as being representing the very same thing, the same
Eckankar, when it it is NOT?

I suggest that you need to make a choice before the internal split you
are not even aware of tears your psyche apart. I am not your problem
here, you are. You are your own problem, and it is people like you
along with Harold's double-speak and personal issues that has slowly
destroyed Paul's and Rebazar's teaching. As fraught with
inconsistencies as it was in form, at least it was the real deal
then.

Your opinion about my skills is .. well should we use the word ..
IRRELEVANT? Seems timely, yes?

And don't fall into the ego trap that you are so important here, what
I say is not actually meant for you - I am speaking to others .. who
will be able to understand exactly what I mean despite you and your
kind remaining lost and clueless and whom do not know what you are
talking about and bring endless harm upon others new to this teaching
who are being sold a crock and not a gold goblet these days. Many have
woken up already; but Harold has again refused to change yet again,
and missed yet another opportunity presented by the EK to also wake up
and smell the daisies.

Baraka Bashad.

[Atara]

There is a great deep ocean and most choose only to swim in Shallow waters. Many individuals become obsessed with trivia about Paul Twitchell such as his birth date and fail to see deeper that he spoke of returning to God itself and deeper into spirituality or into life. Instead of inspiring people to exciting spiritual things they curse, condemn and criticize.

They are not focusing on God or spirituality or their own spiritual path or religion so that they can flourish and help others flourish but instead they obsess on anger and condemning others or condemning other people's paths, religions, (like Paul Twitchell) and so on like the crusades, the Nazi's or others who make condemning and hate their path and way of life.

I say shallow waters because those who comment on Paul Twitchell have no idea what Paul Twitchell is talking about. They say his soul travel is fiction because they fail to have the discipline to learn it themselves. I have read Paul Twitcehll's books and I have experienced out of body travel to different levels of heavens and so have most people I know. It is very similar to those who have near death experiences. If you choose to believe the lies of atheists not satisfied in their athism or satanists who feel God is fiction and spirituality a joke and heaven valueless and empty fantasies of lairs then studying the works of those who swim in those depressing empty waters is the pursuit.
Paul Twitchell was a spiritually great man and one of the greatest spiritual writers who has lived. However after Paul's death Eckankar was hijacked by individuals who were not Paul Twitchells' actual successors. The only research worth focusing upon to me is not Paul Twitchells birth date but returning to God, learning more about God and finding deeper spiritual meaning. All else is a waist of time and makes others focus on trivia instead of focus on God and spirituality (what ever kind of spirituality the person aligns with.)

[wernertrp]

Science has started the human brain project (similiar the human gene project) The next 25 years they will find out more about this virtual illusion generator
called brain (with or without soul inside outside or in between) and how it functions.
Then I will join eckankar again maybe.


Sorry:
NDE experiement with scientific procedure:
PC-Laptop placed above under the ceiling of an OP-room.
Until now they got no evidence of NDE leaving the body and have ESP.
Sorry: Twitchell-Radhasoami planes are inside his and your head only.
(maybe also others who are triggered by Hu)

[HURAY...@westiemail.com]

I agree with you when you say "there is a difference between the real mahanta and the man holding a worldly title as the Mahanta. THere is a new website on this topic about the Secret history of the God Realized Master Paul Twithcell it is at http://www.paultwitchelltruth.com. Much joy to you.

[Wally Nitwit]

A few comments and other points of view

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:22:38 AM UTC+11, Atara wrote:
> There is a great deep ocean and most choose only to swim in Shallow waters.

OH yes, the parable of the frog in the well. Know it well. It's a wise true truism.



Atara: Many individuals become obsessed with trivia about Paul Twitchell such as his birth date and fail to see deeper that he spoke of returning to God itself and deeper into spirituality or into life. Instead of inspiring people to exciting spiritual things they curse, condemn and criticize.

WN: People become obsessed over all kinds of trivial things and non-trivial things Atara. Unfounded leaps of faith to "fail to see", "not inspiring people" and presumptions of "they curse, condemn and criticize" is an opinion not based on anything substantial. It's a "feeling" and a "hopeful guess" only. Doesn't make it true nor real about those (unknown folks) you yourself are criticizing here.

Atara: They are not focusing on God or spirituality or their own spiritual path or religion so that they can flourish and help others flourish

WN: That's an assumption, a belief, an opinion not founded in fact or truth.


Atara: ... but instead they obsess on anger and condemning others or condemning other people's paths, religions, (like Paul Twitchell) and so on like the crusades, the Nazi's or others who make condemning and hate their path and way of life.


WN: Pretty broad brush there Atara, beware the paint hasn't already splattered over yourself, hey.

Atara: I say shallow waters because those who comment on Paul Twitchell have no idea what Paul Twitchell is talking about.

WN: Atara, so you claim this is true about 'them' because you know ............... ? That's a big call. Got any evidence for it?



Atara: They say his soul travel is fiction because they fail to have the discipline to learn it themselves.

WN: So you are psychic too. Who is "they" exactly, or is it just everyone everywhere?


Atara: I have read Paul Twitcehll's books and I have experienced out of body travel to different levels of heavens and so have most people I know.

WN: Ok, that's great. So have many others. Paul Twitchell didn't invent it, he didn't invent the words "soul travel" either for it was used long before Twitchell, plus he, eckankar and all the other groups do not own a Patent on it.

Further more, oobes have nothing whatsoever to do with historical research about a persons DOB either. Two separate issues entirely.


Atara: It is very similar to those who have near death experiences. If you choose to believe the lies of atheists not satisfied in their athism or satanists who feel God is fiction and spirituality a joke and heaven valueless and empty fantasies of lairs then studying the works of those who swim in those depressing empty waters is the pursuit.

WN: Ok then. That still has nothing to do about an historical figures DOB, nor his stories about his life, and the ongoing myths about his life afterwards.


Atara: Paul Twitchell was a spiritually great man and one of the greatest spiritual writers who has lived.

WN: That is your personal opinion. Many agree, many more do not, and even more have never heard of him nor care.


Atara: However after Paul's death Eckankar was hijacked by individuals who were not Paul Twitchells' actual successors. The only research worth focusing upon to me is not Paul Twitchells birth date but returning to God, learning more about God and finding deeper spiritual meaning. All else is a waist of time and makes others focus on trivia instead of focus on God and spirituality (what ever kind of spirituality the person aligns with.)

WN: Again this is your opinion. Most likely absorbed from others beliefs and opinions who told you various things (in person or writings) about Paul and what happened after Paul died in 1971. Doesn't make it true nor correct, simply because this is what you choose to believe. You may be right, and then again you may also not have all the facts about the details nor know about everyone else's first and second hand opinions either.

Furthermore I put it to you that maybe there are in fact NO successors at all, and that everyone single one of them have hijacked Paul to their own ends.

I suggest to you and others Atara then Paul had lost control of his organisation named Eckankar long before he passed away, and that no one had any legitimate right of claim over his personal intentions for Eckankar or his writings. Bar a Copyright ownership right passed onto to Gail Twitchell according to whatever Paul's estate (will) proclaimed. I have never seen an officially recognized Will by Twitchell nor heard of one that even exists.

Therefore anyone's claims about "Twitchell's actual successors or any hijackers" is quite a moot point to me, and many others who may know better in this regard and accept the words and proclamations of others just because they say something.

If you have any evidence to show your opinion here is valid and correct, then by all means present it to the world. I have seen none in the 43 years since he died. Lot's of claims, lot's of beliefs, zero hard substantiating evidence.

I have no valid reason to believe Gail Twitchell, so why should I believe anyone else on this matter? I do not.

A few words about Paul's DOB. Paul is an historical figure. Paul made all kinds of statements about his own life including his age and birth circumstances. Others have repeated them and also changed them and also removed them from publication over decades. Mystery and myths and confusion surround his DOB and related matters. It is a valid issue to enquire about, and to be interested in knowing the truth. People do not have to provide a reason for their interest, nor satisfy anyone else as to their bona fides. Obbes, eckankar, and soul travel,m God, and spirituality has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject. One can be spiritual and interested in Paul's DOB the his life history, or be an atheist, or be a lion tamer.

Makes no difference in the universe what some people might happen to make up in their own minds about these other people who do do historical and biographical research, or talk about or present material to a.r.e. here or anywhere else in the planet.

If you, Atara or other people, have personal opinions or issues or beliefs about this it is utterly irrelevant.

Twitchell did have a genuine good faith belief that his "birthday" was the 22nd Oct 1908. That is a fact and is supported by the evidence. Not knowing what that evidence is, not caring less about that evidence, not wanting to look objectively at that evidence, doesn't change the facts.

The actual truth is highly likely that his real DOB was 23rd Oct 1909. This to is supported by multiple streams of hard evidence.

It is a fact that in Paul's writings and talks right up to the day he died in 1971 that he presented "reports about his life" that do not line up with the true facts of his life. Paul made various claims about this, and those post-Paul (some who knew him and others who did not) have done the same on multiple occasions in the public domain.

It is a fact that in 1963 Paul was claiming he was 40 years old when in truth he was actually 53 years old. In 1964 he did the same. In 1968 he did the same. In 1971 he was claiming he was in his late 30s in official eckankar published materials. The man got younger instead of older.

On top of this there is a plethoroa of all kinds of accusations about him lying matched equally with a mountain of "apologist" rhetoric that eh was in fact a saint and was teaching a spiritual principle. These are just make believe stories told by a few and believed by many with no substance to them whatsoever bar "hearsay". The evidence suggest a totally different picture than people's accepted beliefs on the matter.

Harold Klemp suggest that it appears this was something that tax evaders were know to do, use multiple identities, with different DOBs and different names, different bank accounts, false employment records, and all that jazz. The known 'public' evidence suggests this is an accurate portrayal of what Paul had been doing for a long time. More public presentation of the evidence from historical research (from the right sources) will confirm this as being correct or not.

The same goes with US Passport Visas and the like, which are equally available if one knows how to do it.

Paul Twitchell misrepresented .....
(which is a kind way of putting it without any reference to his actual intentions and purposes which is way too complex for now)
..... a whole lot of things about himself, his life, his history, his spiritual experiences, his sources, his judgments, his choices, his marriages, his beliefs, his writings, his true intentions, and above all his "Eckankar" as well.

He was pretty sloppy about it as well.

Believe what you wish to believe, but this cannot and will not change the actual facts and truths of Paul Twitchell life, nor his words, deeds, beliefs and actions.

But it would be foolish and naive to assume you know more about it than those who tell you stories about and those who have seen the evidence that says otherwise with their own eyes.

Again, God, religion and all the claims ever made about Paul Twitchell by himself and others really has very little to nothing to do with any of this.

Best Wishes anyway.

Wallyboy

[Etznab]

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:37:13 PM UTC-6, HURAY...@westiemail.com wrote:
> I agree with you when you say "there is a difference between the real mahanta and the man holding a worldly title as the Mahanta. THere is a new website on this topic about the Secret history of the God Realized Master Paul Twithcell it is at http://www.paultwitchelltruth.com. Much joy to you.

Where is the physical proof that Rebazar Tarzs chose anybody?

I suspect that Rebazar Tarzs is a pseudo / fictional character invented by Paul Twitchell to avoid crediting the books and authors he "borrowed" from.

Rebazar Tarzs could have come forward in 1971 after Paul died, but he could not do that if he was / is, in fact, not a real person.

Are there documents signed by Rebazar Tarzs, or is this Vardankar just another of the many people and paths come off of Eckankar?

I think one naturally has to go back to the reality of Rebazar Tarzs and look there for the truth. Look at the many, many paragraphs by Rebazar Tarzs found written by anybody but Rebazar Tarzs and long before Eckankar was mentioned and a path by that name founded.

How many masters and paths now have sprung from Paul Twitchell's Eckankar? I reckon there may be at least a half dozen now.

Funny thing that Rebazar Tarzs would support and endorse multiple masters and paths, all under different names and with different lineages in which he is (in so many words) the "torch bearer", etc.

Funny indeed!

[sign...@gmail.com]

Doubt can only resolved by experience, which in turn leads to spiritual unfoldment. One can waste the whole of one's life debating ad nauseam whether or not Paul Twitchell invented Rebazar Tarzs and/or other members of the Ancient Order of the Vairagi.

Yet how can this doubt ever be truly resolved? Why - by experience of course. And how can this be done? By looking to the present Mahanta, the Living ECK Master and committing oneself to the Spiritual Exercises of ECK. Paul is not the Living ECK Master and translated in 1971.

[Wally Nitwit]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:36:21 AM UTC+11, sign...@gmail.com wrote:

Rob says:

>
>
> Doubt can only resolved by experience, which in turn leads to spiritual unfoldment. One can waste the whole of one's life debating ad nauseam whether or not Paul Twitchell invented Rebazar Tarzs and/or other members of the Ancient Order of the Vairagi.
>
>
>
> Yet how can this doubt ever be truly resolved? Why - by experience of course. And how can this be done? By looking to the present Mahanta, the Living ECK Master and committing oneself to the Spiritual Exercises of ECK. Paul is not the Living ECK Master and translated in 1971.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

========

'God' gave us all a brain and a Mind as tools to use for our individual benefit.

In order to use IT one needs to actively experience it.

Verbal Sophistry can never be resolved into truth by any "mystical experience" until one REALIZES how to use this gift of Life in all it's attributes including reason, logic, common sense and Intelligence.

One can be spiritually wise aware PLUS "Experienced" still use their Common Sense. Many unfortunately still can not.

Wallyboy

[Wally Nitwit]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:37:13 AM UTC+11, HURAY...@westiemail.com wrote:
> I agree with you when you say "there is a difference between the real mahanta and the man holding a worldly title as the Mahanta. THere is a new website on this topic about the Secret history of the God Realized Master Paul Twithcell it is at http://www.paultwitchelltruth.com. Much joy to you.

Much joy and happiness to you to Ms/Mr Huray.

I have read through this: http://www.paultwitchelltruth.com/ which leads to this: http://vardankar.com/

AS quoted from the middle of the pt 'truth' page, this treatise on Vardankar, Eckankar, ATOM, and Twitchell and now Allen Feldman is simply more of the same old:

"Dogma, opinion, religion, personality worship become our spiritual bread and water."

Lies, damned lies, and personality egos galore.

Thanks but no thanks huray @ westiemail, I am not interested.

I know better already.

Wallyboy

[Wally Nitwit]

RE "Funny thing that Rebazar Tarzs would support and endorse multiple masters and paths, all under different names and with different lineages in which he is (in so many words) the "torch bearer",... "

Damned busy boy for someone who does not exist.
Inspired Christopher Columbus then 500 years later Sudar Singh, then Paul Twitchell and Gail. Then Darwin. Then Harold. Then Dunhami. Then Doug Marman SDP. Then Akatha. Now Vardankar. and another dozen in between too many to recall now.

He must go through a lot of spiritual flip flops with all these busy activities.

[Etznab]

For experience about Rebazar Tarzs I looked at the words to Paul Twitchell by Rebazar Tarzs and found a number of different authors and books. Books written BEFORE Paul Twitchell wrote his!

If you want to talk about experience, perhaps we can talk about the number of people who refuse to acknowledge the other authors and books which were a part of Paul Twitchell's recommended reading list BEFORE the founding of Eckankar Inc. Moreover, perhaps we can discuss the historical record of writings and statements by Paul Twitchell in chronological order and how pieces of information have changed over time. Most notably, the changing of names.