Ananai vs. DWTM vs. IMSIAF

[Etznab]

Chapter 5 from DWTM was called The True Meaning Of Love. Here are some quote comparisons between the three pieces (DWTM 1956, Ananai 1956 & IMSIAF 1968) pieces written in 1956.

Ananai:

"[...] The name we give to this Deity, in Ruhani Satsang, is SAT NAM. [... .]" - Ananai (1956) - p. 15

IMSIAF:

"[...] The name we give to this deity in Eckankar is the Sugmad. [... .]" - In My Soul I Am Free, Brad Steiger (1968) - pp. 149-150

DWTM:

"[...] The name we give to this Deity is the SUGMAD. [... .]" - DWTM (1970 - 8th Printing, 1983), p. 27

Ananai:

"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of SAT NAM, are put into a single ideal and called God for the sake of those without imagination, or hope of knowing God. This is what we love at this stage of our development. Call it God, Reality or Radha Soami. Anything for the sake of identification. - Ananai (1956), p. 16

IMSIAF:

"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of the Sugmad, are put into a single ideal and called God for the sake of those without imagination or hope of knowing God. This is what we love at this stage of our development. Call it God, reality, or the Sugmad - anything for the sake of identification. - In My Soul I Am Free, Brad Steiger (1968) - pp. 149-150

DWTM:

"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of ECKANKAR, are blended into a single form and called 'God' for the sake of those without imagination. This is what we love at this step of our development. Call it God, Reality, the SUGMAD, or whatever you desire for the sake of identification." - DWTM (1970 - 8th Printing, 1983), p. 28

***

Assuming that the DWTM chapter 5 was written before March 25th, 1956 it would mean that the piece for Ananai appeared months later when it showed up in July 1956 in Ananai-Kyo Magazine. And even there the lingo and dogma is closer to Ruhani Satsang than it is to something called Eckankar.

That there was no mention of Rebazar Tarzs, Eckankar, or Sugmad in that 1956 Ananai-Kyo article ... it leads me to suspect there was no mention of them in the 1956 DWTM manuscript either.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/ILh5lqLGABo/qS7_n6UafYwJ

[Etznab]

Here one can see that in two sources Paul Twitchell was the writer. Somehow Paul then changes into Rebazar Tarzs. Now just imagine that.

[Henosis Sage]

That's found in full in the summary of DWTM plagiarism for pages 27-30
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-M0yAR0UPhPSXlQVUwxbTFyenc

Summarising, there can be no doubt that it was intended for the reader to take on face value,
that the book DWTM was:
1) the record of the spoken words of Rebazar Tarzs
2) that Rebazar Tarzs dominates the entire text
3) whatever he has said in the spoken word was recorded (as close as possible)
4) and also the ECK Masters ... spoke in a most lofty manner
5) whatever was said was to be recorded for the whole of humanity.
6) their words would mean only what was said and nothing else.
7) The record of appearing in Paul's home and dictating the bulk of the contents of the book.
However what we have seen in the above Plagiarism examples from the DWTM book are in fact the hard facts!
These present an entirely different “truth” than most people were led to believe.
One can see the original written sources for the majority of the text in these sections of DWTM.
One can see there were no so-called 'dialogues' with a Mr Rebazar Tarzs being recorded by Paul Twitchell
The DWTM book is predominantly Plagiarised materials, at times verbatim, from at least 15 other Authors.