Living what? ... living History?

[Etznab]

Following are three sets of quotes. The second set shows
so many words by "Rebazar Tarzs". The third set shows so
many words by Paul Twitchell. The first set - that preceeds
them both by about 30 years - appears to be "history handed
down" from one person to another, but history nevertheless.

*********

"The Master is the only man manifesting in history in whom
individualism and universalism are combined in their full ex-
pression, in spite of the assertion of some philosophers that
such a combination is impossible. That is, the Master stands
alone, is a law unto himself, does what he pleases, has what
he wants, comes and goes absolutely at his own will, and
asks no favors of no man. Neither can any man hinder him in
the execution of his will. He is the only man who has no need
to ask favors of others. He has all things at his own command.
If he suffers hardships or inconveniences, that is because he chooses
to do so for some purpose. He is the supreme giver,
not a receiver; that is, he always pays for what he gets. He is
slave to no one, is no time server, is bound by no rule or
custom outside of himself and is a citizen of the whole world.
[....]

"There is but one to whom the Master bows in humble submission -
the Supreme Lord, Sat Purush. His sovereign
will is the only law the Master recognizes, that and the
universal law of all laws - love [word "love" in italics]. [....]"

- The Path of the Masters, by "Julian Johnson", copy-
right 1939, 16th Edition 1997, pp. 180-181

*********

"The ECK traveler is the only man ever manifested in all
history in whom individualism and universalism are combined
in their full expression. That is, the spiritual traveler stands
alone, is a law unto himself, does what he pleases, has what
he wants, comes and goes absolutely at his own will, and
asks favors of no man. Neither can any man hinder him in
the execution of his will. He is the only man who has no need
to ask favors of others; he has all things at his own command.
If he suffers hardships, or inconveniences, that is bacause he chooses
to do so for some purpose. He always pays for what
he gets. He is not a slave to anyone, is no time server, is not bound
by any rule or custom outside of himself, and is a
citizen of the whole world.

"There is but one to whom the spiritual traveler bows in
humble submission - the Supreme SUGMAD - Lord of All
things in the highest height of the spiritual worlds. ITS sov-
ereign law is the only law the spiritual traveler recognizes,
and the universal law of all laws - Wisdon, Power and
Freedom!"

- The Far Country, Copyright 1970, by Paul Twitchell
2rd Printing 1972, pp. 120-121 ("Rebazar Tarzs speak-
ing" to Paul Twitchell)

Questions: Did Paul Twitchell use so many words from
the previous book, but "make believe" that he got it from
Rebazar Tarzs? What does this say about the history of
Rebazar Tarzs living in a physical body? not to mention
stepping in to the breach between one Eck Master and
another? How can so many words from history equate to
a "LIVING" Eck Master? These are questions a person
looking at Eckankar history might ask themself. And how
the word "Master" / "spiritual traveler", became "Living Eck
Master" (Or, why?). How would you answer any of these questions?
Curious.

*********

"The Living ECK Master is the only man, or should I say
being, who is capable of manifesting both individualism and
universalism in their full expressions. He is a law unto him-
self, does what he pleases, has what he wants, comes and
goes absolutely at his own will, and asks no favors of any
man. Nobody can hinder him in the execution of his will. All
things are at his command. He is not a slave to anyone. He
is no timeserver, is not bound by any rule or custom outside himself,
and he is a citizen of all the universes of God. He
bows only to God and not to any person or entity on this
plane or any other plane.

- ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, Copyright 1969,
1987 ECKANKAR, 2nd Printing 1988, p. 67 (3rd paragraph)

Etznab

P.S. Apology if any typos.

[Rich]

"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187057663.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

These questions have been answered for you several times.
Are you looking for a different answer?
You might find something in the archives:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=%20+group:alt.religion.eckankar

` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~

[Etznab]

> You might find something in the archives:http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=%20+group:alt.religi...

>
> ` o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _/____|___\_
> Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
>
>
>
> > *********
>
> > "The Living ECK Master is the only man, or should I say
> > being, who is capable of manifesting both individualism and
> > universalism in their full expressions. He is a law unto him-
> > self, does what he pleases, has what he wants, comes and
> > goes absolutely at his own will, and asks no favors of any
> > man. Nobody can hinder him in the execution of his will. All
> > things are at his command. He is not a slave to anyone. He
> > is no timeserver, is not bound by any rule or custom outside himself,
> > and he is a citizen of all the universes of God. He
> > bows only to God and not to any person or entity on this
> > plane or any other plane.
>
> > - ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, Copyright 1969,
> > 1987 ECKANKAR, 2nd Printing 1988, p. 67 (3rd paragraph)
>
> > Etznab
>

> > P.S. Apology if any typos.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rich,

I agree that on A.R.E. questions get asked and answered
regularly, based upon what people know.

Looking at three sets of writings that "appear" to illustrate
answers about a particular subject - writings apparently by
Julian Johnson, Rebazar Tarzs & Paul Twitchell - are simply
somethging I find particularly interesting. And most notably
because Rebazar Tarzs was said to have been a Mahanta
before Paul Twitchell (Chapter 7, 1st paragraph of The Far
Country).

There have been many questions and answers, however,
what interests me is that Rebazar Tarzs still appears to be
a paradox. IMO.

Far as looking for any particular answer, I would say that
I am looking for the "actual" truth about who was, or that is,
Rebazar Tarzs. By "actual" I mean to say, Who is acting in
the role of Rebazar Tarzs now? Is there a physical body for
him, or is he based on history, etc?

I am not certain about the "actual" truth concerning this
topic, because I see two apparently different sides to the
story - depending on who you ask. This, IMO, is paradox.
Something to contemplate. Something to study.

Etznab

[wernertrp]

> Etznab- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

A full master is full of masters.

[Etznab]

> Etznab- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I was quite surprised after having recently finished reading
The Far Country. The first time in quite a while.

It wasn't like the first time I read it many years ago when I
first found a copy in Washington state. There seemed to be
so much more this time around.

It was a little peculiar to see the terms "spiritual traveler",
"Eck Master", "MAHANTA" & "Living Eck Master" weaving
their way throughout the paragraphs. Peculiar because the
definitions for each (as I understtod them) did not appear to
be the same. However, by the end of the book my overall
impression was that each chapter built upon the ones before,
until the core message brought itself home.

IMO, Imagination was a central and most important theme
in itself. And I found that the "Eck" and the "Sugmad" were
described at length too.

It was impressive to consider that The Far Country came
about in the early 1960s, and that much of what is found in
this book can be found in subsequent books as well.

IMO, the "message" was more important than how that
message came about. I thought Paul did a very good job
at illustrating something that (IMO) would be hard for any-
one to put into words.

If it were possible, I would still love to read the original
unedited manuscript of The Far Country. Nevertheless, I
believe the version I have says a lot about Eckankar and
the ways that Paul Twitchell used to describe it.

Etznab

[Rich]

"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote

> I was quite surprised after having recently finished reading
> The Far Country. The first time in quite a while.
>
> It wasn't like the first time I read it many years ago when I
> first found a copy in Washington state. There seemed to be
> so much more this time around.

It's wonderful experience, because one knows the words didn't change, and
thus recognizes that it is their state of consciousness which has grown to
accept more. I've found it to be a common experience that over a period of
years many have expanded their perceptions, yet do not always see the extent
of their own growth. I have an Eckist friend who just told me via email,
that he is now stationed in Iraq. Even being a long time Eckist, he is
having the same experience with the Shariyat. He described it as being,
"quite delicious to bring the newly discovered inner realms out into the
open". It's not a wake up call. It's more like, 'surprise!, you are already
awake'. In a way it is identifying having moved out to a more expansive
benchmark.

> It was a little peculiar to see the terms "spiritual traveler",
> "Eck Master", "MAHANTA" & "Living Eck Master" weaving
> their way throughout the paragraphs. Peculiar because the
> definitions for each (as I understtod them) did not appear to
> be the same. However, by the end of the book my overall
> impression was that each chapter built upon the ones before,
> until the core message brought itself home.

IME Paul had a superlative knack for that. Contradictory, paradoxically
expressing things can propel one to grasp the core spiritual message beneath
the words. I recall him writing something to the effect, (my words)about a
rhythm to the discourses. That by design they would build a harmony or
resonance which slowly raised the consciousness. It's 'listening' to the
ECK, the Sound Current, which is the core message of the ECK teachings.

> IMO, Imagination was a central and most important theme
> in itself.

I've grown to see that as the underlying modus operandi of creation. People
get confused by what they are used to as the definition of that word. Paul's
writings opened the door for me to see much more reality which emanates from
that faculty.

> And I found that the "Eck" and the "Sugmad" were
> described at length too.
>
> It was impressive to consider that The Far Country came
> about in the early 1960s, and that much of what is found in
> this book can be found in subsequent books as well.
>
> IMO, the "message" was more important than how that
> message came about. I thought Paul did a very good job
> at illustrating something that (IMO) would be hard for any-
> one to put into words.

Becoming too specific narrows the perception of the overall concept. It
relegates one to a mental understanding, which is only one aspect of what
Is. The meaning of the words to me is only a starting point to jump off
into the far country of conscious perception. Living that way(to reprise
the Subject) leaves the History pale.

> If it were possible, I would still love to read the original
> unedited manuscript of The Far Country.

Me too. Yet I believe that the differences would be small.

> Nevertheless, I
> believe the version I have says a lot about Eckankar and
> the ways that Paul Twitchell used to describe it.

While he was continually refining/editing/reusing what he had previously
written, I can see the whole picture is laid out in his earlier books.
Those memes and paradigms rest in me today.

I just opened the book and this is the first thing I read:

"The forces of the no-thing world will begin to suggest the right course for
the outer to take, reason over and adapt for use. The object is to bring the
two faculties into balance and give the forces of the no-thing world the
edge-but nothing too much, for it would be quite unreasonable to let this
faculty rule you completely in this matter-real world;"

- The Far Country - pg 179 fourth printing

[Etznab]

For trivial purposes and future reference, the following
represesents a transcription of two paragraphs from the
1973 copyright - Letters to Gail, Vol. Two - of letter 89
dated June 28, 1963 listed in Table of Contents under
the title: How to Find the Guru. (all words illustrated
in italics)

"[....]

A genuine master is the super-man of history, and by virtue
of his development, he has become the prototype of the race,
the most splendid specimen of manhood, the nobelest of the
noble. He has the best of health, a high, keen, penetrating
mind, quick of wit and sound of judgement. He may not be
educated by formal education, but his mind has undergone
the hardest training and discipline. He is the only man ever

manifested in all history in whom individualism and

universalism are combined in their full expression; this in

spite of the assertion of some philosophers that such a

combination is impossible. But you see the Master stands
alone, for he is a law unto himself, does what he pleases
and he asks favors of no man.

"Neither can any man hinder him in the execution of his

will, for he has all things at his own command, and if he
suffers hardships, or inconvieniences, that is because he

chooses to do so for some purpose. He is the supreme

giver, not a receiver and he always pays for what he gets.

He is slave to no one, is no time server, is bound by no

rule or custom outside of himself, and he is a citizen of
the whole world. His life and teachings are universal. He
belongs to no race or time, but to all nations and all
times. He is a paradox in religion, teaches no theology,
has none, yet he is the most religious of all. His system
is not a religion, yet it leads to the most complete
religious experience, and the happiest, for he is
absolutely universal in all his teachings. He has no
creed, yet he never antagonizes any creed, sect, or
institution. He finds no fault with anyone or anything,
yet he draws the sharpest lines between the good and
bad. He considers human weakness only an illness
brought on by abberations or engrams.

[....]"

[Based on: Letters to Gail, Vol. Two, Copyright 1977,
Fourth Printing 1986, p. 126 (2nd & 3rd paragraphs).

The terms "MAHANTA" & "Living ECK Master"
are not illustrated in this letter.

Etznab

[Doug]

Etznab,

Thanks for sharing your experience here.

I can relate.

Doug.

[Etznab]

I like this thread because it began with quotes about a "master". However, the oldest Eckankar version (from L.T.G. 2) is something even more interesting to me on account of the time it was written.

Btw, Who does the research for Eckankar? I wonder. Many people (I suspect) believed the Eckankar master was somehow special, or unique. Also (I suspect) until they find Paul Twitchell, the founder, copying from other people's books, his successor's (Darwin Gross') secretary denying any plagiarism and then his successor (Harold Klemp) finding a "growing list" of which he was reportedly not so happy. How are these Eckankar masters in any way superior in intellect compared with the average person. In fact, in some ways they look (to me) less than average. Who copies spiritual information from books, attributes that to someone else, founds a "new" spiritual path and religion upon the information and then dawns the title of "master", etc.? Paul Twitchell? After Paul is dead and questions are asked, Who makes believe there was no plagiarism and that Paul Twitchell was his "master"? Darwin Gross? After many more years and many more questions, Who then begins research about Paul Twitchell, about examples of plagiarism and discovers a growing list? Harold Klemp?

Why weren't Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp aware of these things from the very beginning? And why didn't they tell people about all these things from the very beginning? Is it because 1.) They didn't know? 2.) They didn't want to know about it. or 3.) They knew, but didn't want to talk about it? Perhaps there are other reasons to choose from.

After it was all said and done ... actually it was 1980 and before Harold gave his talks about Paul Twitchell, the former 1st President of Eckankar, personal friend and doctor of Paul Twitchell went on record saying:

Date: June 19, 1980

My wife and I opened the first Eck class in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul [Paul Twitchell] many times and was the main speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away. Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied. I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what he had done and his answer was "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. As far as Darwin (Gross) is concerned, my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master. I don't think that a Master would divorce his wife and seek many other female companions.

                                             Signed: Louis Bluth, MD.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434

The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master.

That was 1980 and before Harold Klemp became the leader of Eckankar (1981). Well, I wonder why Darwin Gross was trying to find a replacement as early as 1980. Why he divorced his wife (Also the former wife of Paul Twitchell, and the woman who helped appoint Darwin Gross as Living Eck Master in the first place. - 1971) I wonder if it had anything to do with David Lane's book; information - a lot of which - Eckankar was NOT in the habit of making public or distributing to its members. (I'm mostly referring to a growing list of plagiarisms and the plagiarized, or copied from author's names.)

People in the past have alleged coverup. That certain information was covered up. However, Harold Klemp already did come out in the 1980s and admit a number of things. IMO, however, the biggest coverup is the real identity of Rebazar Tarzs and a number of other Eck Masters. I too suspect some form of coverup in this regard, because these "Eck Masters" are like "foundational" material; the removal of which could cause people to ask the #1 questions: What about the Living Eck Master? Where did he get all of his information about Eckankar from?
If not from the Eck Masters then from who? Or, what?

[Etznab]

Isn't the lineage of Eck Masters supposed to be an unbroken line of actually living (or having once actually lived) people? and the teachings an unbroken legacy of same? Isn't this part of what members of Eckankar are taught? and that the current leader of Eckankar is at the end of this long line? Which of these things are actually true I suspect time will tell. What will the next (if there is a next) Living Eck Master (in spite of all the information made public since 1981) say and how will the membership (meaning every single person) react?

Note. I (and many others) already started reacting many years ago. Some people have left Eckankar, or quit researching altogether. However, some have remained and continue to research so when the truth comes out they will not have their heads buried in the sand.

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Monday, 15 December 2014 01:23:14 UTC+11, Etznab wrote:

--------------

RE PT says:
The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it
better than I could I copied it."

Hi,

Bluth wrote that in June 1980.

His wife Dr. Dorothy Bluth had just passed away in May 1980, aged 80.

Louis Bluth passed away in Nov 1980, aged 85.

Dr Bluth wrote that to David Lane.

I would like to see the original letter in full, scanned and uploaded.

Maybe one day.

These comments didn't become widely known until David lane published his
TMOASM paperback book in April 1983.

This information from Bluth came after the magazine expose on Eckankar by
Mark Albrect and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) in late 1979.

They used some of Lane's published materials such as his college work papers.

But what Bluth had said about Twitchell, Gail and Darwin in this letter wasn't
publicly known about until Easter of 1983.

Darwin Gross is a month away from relocating his home / office permanently to
the Salishan property, Gleneden, Oregon.

It's a really lovely 5 star health retreat now. A short stroll to the beach.

Harold is cranky and listening to all this gossip and opinions from people,
dobbing in other people for saying this and that. In their "opinion" "pov".

TMOASM is published and it's not long before HQ knows and is getting calls from
the field about it. What to say?

This is the first time what Bluth had to say in his letter to David Lane is
published, known about openly.

In June 1980, a couple of months later, the new LTG 3 book is delivered. 16,000
copies ready for sale.

It's well known from the Oct 22 HI meeting, that there was a drama over the
contents of that book edited by Darwin Gross. 'too much information', it wasn't
'fitted out for Eckankar' properly, and Patti needed to edit it asap.

The book was pulped, about September 1983.

Harold gets Twitchell's unpublished manuscripts and personal archive about
December 1983 ~ hard to say.

In January 1984 he totally excommunicates Darwin Gross, and 'removes all his
initiations' etc. Gross then starts legal action against Eckankar for his
lifetime agreement.

Harold keeps digging into the archive, and what's in Lane's TMOASM book,
speaks to various people, meets Doug Marman in out of the way carparks,
researches the Helen Frye court case, and Harold goes "WTF?" about all
that "turns up".

Early 1984 Harold starts giving series of talks and articles on Twitchell
history.

It's not until 1990 that LTG 3 gets re-published as a book. It is different
at times from Darwin Gross' 1983 version.

By 2004 hardly any Eckists have heard of a.r.e. or any of the history and
plagiarism controversy, or care about it. It's "little known" ... as per
Doug Marman's Dialogues website name from 2001.

Then along came Ford Johnson and Graham Forsythe circa 2003 to 2005

Marman's The Whole Truth came out 2007 (2006?)

All neat and tidy now.

"Just read TWT by DM" and put it away in the draw.

I suspect that very few eckists today are aware of the history of these matters. And those that are, were still not concerned or interested.
which is fine, of course.

It's... interesting though.

[Kinpa]

actually a majority of new ECKists are completely aware of all of this, and even have David Lane's and Ford Johnson's books available to read along side of any number of Eckankar books, and one thing they do not have to add into the mix is an ebook version of TWT, at least not yet....regardless, i meet several people almost every week that have had experiences with the so called "fictional" ECK Masters, many of whom are not anywhere near being ECKists as they belong to other various religions, which is also not at all a problem..a great many of these have had these visitations by entities they had never heard of before, the same as are called ECK Masters.....it is a strange non-logic that while pointing out plagiarism on quotes that were reportedly given to PT by Rebazar Tarzs or other Masters, that the plagiarism itself in some way is assumed to be proof that the Masters were made up. There is no evidence to support that conclusion, not one thing. There are however, several other possibilities that appear to have never occurred to anyone, and this being the case, one has to wonder why persons who are so outspoken about having proven these things as facts, never even consider these other options, much less refuting them. That leaves some very large holes in the story purported to be the truth by so many former students, who all seem to agree on the same set of standards of what PT actually did or the why of the thing. What is most amusing is that these people are in an exact same place they claim any ECKist to be in, regardless of the fact that theirs happens to be the opposing point of view, it is still just the same. The mind sees what i WANTS to see and most interpret the things they find by those same standards, but this does not change the fact that they have also missed on other possibilities. And yet the list or people that meet with these spiritual entities that are called certain names by Eckankar does not at all change. People that have never even heard of Eckankar still meet with these Masters, but being that they had never been told about nor have ever read a book published by Eckankar, that circumvents the old assumption that people who have such experiences are guilty of mythical thinking, while at the same time showing that those who generally make this claim against people are guilty of it themselves from having assumed the comfortable (for themselves) option as opposed to looking into the entire matter. Then there is the fact that these points of view also claim that any/every spiritual or "inner" experience that anyone on earth has ever had, is a fiction created by the brain, which is fine, but those are usually called atheists or at the least agnostics. With all of the name calling that happens, why is this always avoided? What is everyone so scared of?

[wernertrp]

A member of the Germany Freiburg Satsang in 1982 told me
that the picture of Darwin Gross had smiled to her
(but the picture did not smile)
when she entered the first time the Eck-Center.

I asked her really ??? and she agreed Darwin Gross smiled really.



This Eck-Center have had a picture of the dimension
35 cm x 60 cm of Darwin Gross and is positioned at the wall.
A short time later (2 month) the Mahdis of this Eck-Center Josef Sedlmaier came in and brought a very little picture of Harold Klemp which has the dimensions 8 cm x 15 cm which is positioned at the shelf.
Now we are informed we have two Eck-masters Mahantas which will work together in harmony.


Later the big picture of Darwin Gross was removed
(this was told to me)
I have never entered the Eck-Center again to see a big picture at the wall
in the Eck-Center of Harold Klemp.

[Etznab]

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Etznab]

Have them explain why they plagiarized.

[Etznab]

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:50:52 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:

There are people in the Nut House who also claim many such things. Should they be allowed to join together, form a religion and ask for donations?

What do you think?

[Peetee Aitchei]

"But what Bluth had said about Twitchell, Gail and Darwin in this (1980) letter
wasn't publicly known about until Easter of 1983 (when the TMOASM paperback
was published)."


Etznab: Thanks for clarifying that.


P: You're welcome. :)

[Peetee Aitchei]

Have you considered doing a remedial weeding and whiteting course?

Couldn't hurt. But someone should report your post to the Google Mind
Police for being so far off topic it should be deleted.

Go start your own thread to talk about the things you want to talk about.
Your personal issues have nothing to do with this thread.

[Kinpa]

are you quite finished whining??? it seems as if you are having personal problems, i actually have none! if you would like to report me, then stop whining and go do it, otherwise,stuff a sock in it, you have no ability to decide who gets to post here and who does not, so deal with it! as for remedial, are you enjoying the view in the mirror???

[Peetee Aitchei]

Patti-Simpson-Rivinus was an ex-Eckist.

She didn't support Eckankar, the organization/teachings, or Harold Klemp or
or Peter Skelskey, or the doctrines being taught by them. Patti was online
for the last decade of her life clarifying these things, semi-publicly and privately.

Some related historical framing

2008 New Tooting home for Eckankar - NO ECK Centers in the UK
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPZDd3NU9JVmR1RUE/view?usp=sharing

2008-03-08 (Death) Sri Darwin Gross Translates
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPWmxiLW40NldhZHM/view?usp=sharing

2008-10-12 Patti Simpson-Rivinus Measuring Ourselves SDP Forum & Seminar
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPemo3NlhjQXQ0T0E/view?usp=sharing

2009-07 Doug Marman on Myths Popular Opinion vs Truth We Discover
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTE1tUjkyaThOeHc/view?usp=sharing

2009-12-02 Marge Klemp i'view ECKists put in Asylums 1970 Needed Protection of Non-Profit Status
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPa29YWkNlbzY5UUE/view?usp=sharing

2011-02-11 Patti Simpson-Rivinus P.S. My Take on it All
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNy1YZ2F3VTRNTDA/view?usp=sharing


--- ---

Doug Marman is an ex-Eckist (apostate) who doesn't accept Harold Klemp as the Mahanta anymore. That he was replaced a decade ago or so. Doug suggests that
he can't say who the new Mahanta (pole of the world) is. Even though the last
3 LEMs have had no problem saying who they are by their "title." :)

Doug Marman has been writing publicly since the late 90s early 2000s to today,
about the historical matters that Klemp said not to write about.

Doug Marman didn't work it out until ~2005, that the 'plagiarism' issue was
intertwined with putting those words into someone else's mouths and that, that
was 'deceptive', not clear at all. And later this got really friggin' confusing
for people to deal with. That and a very large % of people took what was being
said as being as he said it happened.

Doug Marman happily and willingly admits that Twitchell plagiarized, but that
it would only account for less than 2% of his total Eckankar writing output.

The first time Marman ever made such an admission publicly, that we can find,
was on Ford Johnson's TruthSeeker bulletin board, in I think 2004, maybe late
2003.

Some other eckists never paid much heed to the 'mythology' and story telling. But truth is that most do. Dr. Harry Hindsight PhD, has suggested it's best
not to take anything "literally" in the Eckankar writings or talks.

Assume it is always in code, like poetry, vague hints, a finger pointing to
the moon, and lifted from someone else, etc. Guesses and a sense of "framing"
for the "story" add to the mix, and finally the take away inner message ......
of don't believe any of the outer message. LOL

[Kinpa]

you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 13:40:52 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:



> you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!

What Magik. Saying that was a surprise. Does it count? LOL

[Kinpa]

Is there any "they" that plagiarized or just a "he"?

[Kinpa]

magik? no, that stuff is for amateurs lol, i have no time for such regardless of the spelling. it must have been the wind after all! LOL

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 15:15:57 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


Then there is the fact that these points of view also claim that any/every spiritual or "inner" experience that anyone on earth has ever had, is a fiction created by the brain, which is fine, but those are usually called atheists or at the least agnostics. With all of the name calling that happens, why is this always avoided? What is everyone so scared of?
> >
> > Have them explain why they plagiarized.
>
> Is there any "they" that plagiarized or just a "he"?

Yes there is Helena Blavatsky back in the 1860s
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPQTJJUjFBSlJZazQ/view?usp=sharing

That extensive plagiarism was made public circa and before 1893

See: H.P. Blavatsy and Rudolph Steiner - Man's Secret Past by Peter Holleran
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPcFdBRVNjZ3FrQTg/view?usp=sharing

Images of Rebazar Tarzs - El Morya Khan - Shri Jambavan Mahanta
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPY01SZ0Vsa3dLRzQ/view?usp=sharing

Many people 'borrowed' from Blavatsky in turn, as well as Alice Bailey, Annie Besant, Guy Ballard, Paul Twitchell, Eduoard Schure, and so on

from: The Theosophical Movement 1875 - 1950

In 1925, just fifty years after the founding of the Theosophical Society in New York, the first
accurate and thorough history of the Theosophical Movement was published by E. P. Dutton
and Company. This volume, entitled The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1925, a History and
a Survey, was compiled by the editors of Theosophy, a monthly journal devoted to the
original objects of the Theosophical Movement. It provided theosophical students and others
interested in the subject with a detailed and documented study of the lifework of H. P.
Blavatsky and other leading figures of the Theosophical Movement Encompassed in the 700
pages of the book were careful accounts of all the major events of Theosophical history, with
enough evidence assembled for every reader to form his own conclusions regarding matters
of controversy; or at least, sufficient to place serious inquirers well along on the path of
individual investigation.

See:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPaGJFR3I0Y0dmZm8/view?usp=sharing

Ascended Masters Sponsored Organizations 19th Century to the Present
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPcS1xQ1Zxa0ExTk0/view?usp=sharing


RE
" Then there is the fact that these points of view also claim that any/every spiritual or "inner" experience that anyone on earth has ever had, is a fiction created by the brain .... blah blah blah"

Please excuse me for being so forward and bold to humbly suggest that by way of
a correction of the public record, that I have never said that above or
anything close to it, and nor have I ever believed it either.

For the record, I have no issue comment about anyone who is a member or likes
eckankar, nor what their inner experiences may tell them, because that's all
good to me, it's fine, OK, no problems here, super, excellent, groovy, no
worries mate, I'm fine with it. Besides some atheists can be pretty extreme
and self-righteous too. :)

And Eckists they believe and focus on whatever they wish, and can do, think and
say whatever they want about anything. No skin off my nose. Because I have no
opinion about peoples personal choices. That's fine.

I'm personally am interested in the physical outer real shared world with a
historical record and what might be learnt from that.

People are entitled to their own opinions but they have no right to their own
facts. Like, a Christian's young earth beliefs won't ever change the age or
existence of a fossil.

True. It won't. Unlikely a little thing like science and maths would change
the Christian's beliefs. :)

But, whatever.

[Etznab]

You and so many other people already know about all the plagiarisms (according to your past posts) and so why are you asking this question?

They.

[Etznab]

How do some Eckists react. This is a fine example.

[Etznab]

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:50:52 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:

Paul Twitchell and Eckankar 'spin-off' teachings today


Akatha http://akatha12.weebly.com/ (Sri Timothy Arnold)
Vardankar http://vardankar.com/ (Sri Allen Feldman)
Marmankar http://spiritualdialogues.com/ (Doug Marman)
Akshara Vidya http://aksharavidya.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=21
Master Path http://www.masterpath.org/ (Sri Gary Olsen)
ATOM http://www.atom.org/ (Sri Darwin Gross deceased)
SFS http://spiritualfreedomsatsang.org/ (Sri Michael Turner)
MSIA http://www.msia.org/ (Sri John R Hinkins deceased)
Dhunami http://www.dhunami.org/ (Sri Paul Marche)
The Way of Truth http://thewayoftruth.org/ (Sri Michael Owens)

And a number of these groups share the same masters. O.K.? However, they don't all draw / paint the exact same pictures or put the same words into the masters mouths.

Kinpa. Don't you remember Eckists who followed the leader of Eckankar, had their own experiences, and Darwin Gross repeated those in court? This indicates that ultimately the reigning leader of Eckankar can legally negate experiences had with Eck Masters if they are not to his liking. Example: If someone has an experience with the masters who say that Harold has to go. See? It has happened with Darwin Gross and it happened with Graham Forsyth. No doubt there are many other examples of Harold, Eckankar and clergy TELLING other people what their experiences actually mean.

All of the posturing - not just by "Eckankar", but by many different spin-offs - is an indication that people are having experiences for sure. But also there is a hierarchy, and there are pseudo man-made hierarchies and self-appointed clergy parroting, mocking, chiming, shouting and defining what is what. Harold says the individual has to decide what works for them. Masters who are animated by words from other people's books does not work for everybody.

There is a "constant" here with religions. They all have some form of hierarchy and some form of human agency representing a position in the hierarchy which stands "above" all other people, all other members, according to their executive power.

Belief can be powerful. Even when people believe in false information and / or do not have the facts. Religions can be powerful too. They can take in many, many people and many, many dollars. If you wanted to control, or have influence over religions in general ... How could one do that? First one could take the teachings of other religions and splice, slice and dice them into the same bowl. One could stir for a long long time until they appear to blend and become one thing. One could make a cookie, or ginger-bread man out of the dough and call it the "Godman on Earth"! A being who represents God on Earth! Imagination can fashion many. many things that people are prone to believe.

Let Harold (or Eckankar) explain why Rebazar Tarzs and other Eck Masters appear to plagiarize other people's writings, even switch identities at will. Either it is plagiarism and the Eck Master's names were created as fictions to conceal the identities and teachings of the actual authors, or the Eck Masters - as Harold said they were - are real. Either way, there is still a need to explain the similarity between what Eck Masters allegedly said and what other people had written in books years before Eckankar was even coined as a word.

I seriously doubt that anybody has located every single plagiarism and every single author, or source for Paul Twitchell and Eckankar's writings. So until the vast majority is found, compiled, illustrated and studied I believe one should refrain from making blanket statements about the Eck Masters and whether real, or not. Otherwise one would be simply guessing. It doesn't mean people can't guess correctly, but for those who are off the mark and who lead others astray I would call that a very bad karma.

[Kinpa]

do stop flattering yourselves Etznab, i did not react, and what you both had been saying was nothing that would cause any reaction. In fact you have no idea what those words i spoke meant, and likewise it is rather self-centered to claim being able to apply YOUR definition to them...are you needing attention or something? If i wanted to have a reaction, trust me, i would be certain to let you know, however, you and Sean simply are not THAT important to anyone, the world does not revolve around the two of you, although it is quite hard to miss your desire for it to do so. Whatever gets YOU through the night! It's alright, it's alright...

[Kinpa]

is there ANY logic being used here at all? anywhere? you, like everyone else in the world, know that Paul Twitchell wrote the books, so, if plagiarism took place, that was done by him alone....besides the fact that if i person SPEAKS the words of another's book out loud to another person, that is not plagiarism, nothing is quite that simple in a court of law, or have you never been in one to learn this fact? your opinion about blanket statements about ECK Masters is fine, opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one, so not a problem, however, you still do not get to pass judgment on others based on these things that TO YOU seem to make so much sense, the simple fact is that not everyone agrees with you, and that is a thing you will one day need to learn to deal with. about PT's plagiarisms, i've said it before, and i'll say it again, the majority simply do not care in the least, the people that you speak to regularly do, which is also fine, but you have never gone out into any group of people that you had previously had no contact with and asked them about it now have you? that does not create an accurate poll, throwing these ideas around amongst the same people time after time. Religion has existed in various forms for thousands of years, and sacred writings (to whichever religion) have always been used and or plagiarised by those reformers who eventually began a new religion, so in that context, plagiarism has always happened, and has never been considered a very big deal by anyone until the 70's at best. it is what it is, and it is not what it is not. Paul Twitchell did not invent plagiarism...what you say about belief is for the most part true, however i will not debate that point because i do not use belief, i do not particularly consider it a valuable thing, but that's just me. Everyone else can do things the way they choose, its no skin off of mine!

[Etznab]

The major issue I see is not plagiarism. It is whether Paul Twitchell and Eckankar have repeatedly lied about the Eck Masters and knowingly rewrote history. This is the major issue IMHO. Not everybody condones the unchecked behavior of lying people. ESPECIALLY CLERGY!!!

Why didn't Darwin Gross write many books dictated to him by Rebazar Tarzs and other Eck Masters? And why hasn't Harold? Iow, Why have these Eckankar leaders not repeated the plagiarizing actions of Paul Twitchell? I believe it's because they know this is wrong, wrong, wrong; and they have a lot less chance getting away with it today (after the "mess" that Paul Twitchell allegedly left").

There is always another step and I think it falls on all of "Eckankar" to clean up Paul's "mess". Doug touched on this topic once.

"[...] As for the Astral library dream, this is unfortunate that it has become misunderstood in this way. I [Doug Marman] cover this in my book as well. I know that some could say that I am just offering another interpretation, but how do I know my interpretation is the correct one? The reason I feel confident is because Harold talked with me about the whole issue of Paul's plagiarism shortly before he had that dream and gave those talks or started writing about it. He was quite straightforward and told me that even though it might be hard to swallow he was discovering a growing list. I know Harold was not happy with what he had learned and felt that Paul had left him a mess to clean up. This is exactly what he says at the end of his Astral Library dream as well. [... .]"

[Based on: January 2004 Doug Marman T.S. post - Response to Usually Skeptical: More Questions to Doug Marman]


http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=152&page=179#m144

With regard to what exactly Harold said in his Astral Library talk, there are now three versions on record:

(1) " 'To show where a lot of the ECK writings on earth came from, [... .]"

- Based on Doug Marman's version in his 2000 online book.

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

(2) "[...] For ... from where a lot of the writings ... Eck writings
on Earth came from [... .]"

- Version based on 1984 (April) Eckankar International Youth Conference, audiotape 4312, copyright 1984, side two (near the end).

(3) "[...] For a lot of the ECK writings to be done on earth, [... .]"

- Based on: Eckankar transcript version in Harold's book and on the official Eckankar website.

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

Like Doug and Like Harold I have also tried to help with the "mess". First, by illustrating and clarifying exactly the growing list. Second, by opening up truthful dialogue about what this actually amounts to and what it means for the VITAL history of an ancient Eck Master lineage.

[Peetee Aitchei]

RE:

"I seriously doubt that anybody has located every single plagiarism and every
single author, or source for Paul Twitchell and Eckankar's writings."

I think you're right there.

There is still something that is beyond doubt, there is a clear pattern of
behaviour in those books heavily plagiarised in HOW they were "compiled" as we say. It's a good method for sure, if the source information is good and blaneds together in a way people understand. That is, all Twitchell's his books were
written this way.

He fed text from several books at a time, and then changed to another set of sources books for the next few chapters.

When plagiarism has been found it dominates the entire text for pages on end.
It's fair assume that when 20 pages show up and there's no known plagiarism
there, that there's little doubt there was at least one or two sources.

That 'plagiarism dominates' the entire collection of his books from
beginning to end.

The plagiarism approach, rewriting the source content to varying degrees, the extent of it found in whole chapters naturally also exists (persists) throughout and across all Twitchell's Eckankar writings.

That's his style, his MO. Paul would take some passages and repeat them, slightly rewritten, in a later chapter being said by another Eck master,
or himself. Much of the discourses are copied, reordered slightly, and
rewritten from the various books/manuscripts, or vice-versa.

But almost all of it is borrowed from some other text. His monthly letters to
chelas was often plagiarized from some text and reframed into 'eckankar'.

Just sayin' .. not complain'. That's what happened basically. An educated guess
is more than 90% of Eckankar writings were done in this way.
"One of these days, those folders will make me a lot of money." (sic)
Paul Twitchell to Roy Eugene Davis circa 1959

1968 Is The New Age Messiah In Our Midst - The Longevity of the Ancient Adepts
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNFdVQkJ5elM4TUk/view?usp=sharing

1968 All About ECK by Paul Twitchell Booklet SEE Page 84 "New Age Messiah"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPZURHVk5pckdpV1k/view?usp=sharing

1969-05 Search Magazine - Twitchell Predicts the Future by James Walker [PT Pseudo]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPUnJsalBTT0FnWlk/view?usp=sharing

1969-11-01 Press Courier Oxnard CA - New Religious Leader Makes Inroads on Orthodox Faiths (Press Release)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTjVMbEpuWmpZN1E/view?usp=sharing

1970-01-09 Playground Daily News Fort Walton Beach FL - New Religious Leader Makes World Impact (PR OCR text)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPWjRwN1RsclpVMUU/view?usp=sharing

1970-01-02 Salina Journal Kansas - Nevadan Says He's High Guru (Press Release)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNXlxNTJGdlV5R0U/view?usp=sharing

1969 Original Lancer Book Covers - Eckankar The Key to Secret Worlds
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTlN6cXMtTDcxckE/view?usp=sharing

1970 THE SHARIYAT-KI-SUGMAD Volume One - THE TROUBLE WITH RELIGION quote
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPOUwyZGd5TTl1M0k/view?usp=sharing

1971-09-09 Kirpal Singh not a Master, PT World Avatar, Colonel Peddar Zaskq, PT Pseudos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPWjkwczQtMEpTclE/view?usp=sharing

1971-10 The Mystic World - Official Announcement Paulji Translates
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPa2FfcnVlcEtVSDg/view?usp=sharing

fwiw

Peace!

[Kinpa]

regardless, the question has no value. why? because you and Sean cannot afford to sue Eckankar with any charges. simple fact. re-writing history is merely one point of view on the matter,and not one that is able to achieve a higher place. that is purely subjective, therefore YOU can value it more than any other, but no one is made to agree with you or yours, not anymore than anyone has been forced to accept Doug Marman's interpretations of the history, or Paul Twitchell. you are attempting to circumnavigate the situation by approaching from another tact, which is fine, however it may still never work out for you or Sean, which is also fine since you both have already decided what you BELIEVE to be the case in the matter. Eckankar, exactly like life, can only be what YOU make it for YOURSELF. if you found no proof of any Masters existing, that is no problem as it is purely subjective, but that is not in any way evidence that these Masters do not exist. so the claim of Eckankar doing a wrong by falsifying history is a thing you will never prove, and even if by a stroke of luck you thought you were able to, you would fall flat on your face due to your financial restrictions. but you can certainly continue jousting windmills for the rest of your days if you see that a fit way to spend your time and efforts. no skin off of mine.

the comparison of yourself with Doug and Harold is a falsity. stop doing that, it shows a huge hole in your logic. or continue, but blame no one but yourself if it does not work out the way you plan. plagiarism can only be attributed to Paul Twitchell, and not to any other, but since the majority of his books are no longer being sold, that issue is a dead horse, there is simply nowhere new to go with it, and a growing number of people do not find it disturbing in any way, and by that i refer to the new people that i meet on a daily basis, and openly admit the plagiarisms. they simply do not care, because they have an education in history and as i said before, are well aware the number of times and the regularity with which it has been known to happen. so again, to each, their own, which is as it should be. you can certainly use the physical evidence to your heart's content to debate the issue, but you will find that you fail to draw new members into the "cult" of your own point of view, which does not necessarily devalue it, but neither does it do anything to prove it as being accurate, and that is the rub. it is what it is, and cannot ever be what it is not, and while many that you know may think it to be and want it to be a thing that means more and effects more individuals, it has an easily seen extent that it is able to travel, and it simply will not go any further. and of course you can do whatever you want about that situation day after day, it IS your time and energy to spend and/or waste.

one idea that i have yet to see anyone consider on the idea of the creation of ECK Masters, is that of NAMES being created for actual spiritual entities that DO in fact exist! it is certainly not their fault or business if any former ECKists were never able to meet with or perceive any of them. but i maintain the simple truth that proving that Twitchell plagiarized previous writings and attributed those words to ECK Masters, by whatever names, simply does not, and cannot prove that they do not exist or were created by Twitchell. simple fact once again, and trying to use that line as a line of evidence that they are fictional is like trying to meld apples and oranges, it will not work, they are two entirely different matters. trying to apply one to the other is more akin to a sleight of hand than actual truth finding. one thing that never changes in it is any individual's subjective point of view and/or experiences with it, and those have been consistently shown to never reach an agreement that can be observed throughout, and name calling does not apply within this context i speak of. one simply must do better than that and still be willing to simply have their own point of view on it, even if that means standing alone with it.

astral library??? do you seriously believe that there is no such thing? you can have a prejudice about the subject because Harold spoke of it, but i would consider it a long step to take out on a weak limb to claim that there is no such place on the Astral Plane. to even have any sense of a knowing that ISNT hearsay, one must actually go and become conscious there. some are easily able to, and others not so much, but as of yet no one has been able to prove that the plane does not actually exist, or that the plane has no such library anywhere on it.....and in many ways this is no different than many new age beliefs about the contents of the library at Alexandria, although at the least we can be certain that city had a library. the much lesser known historical fact is that it was a mere copy of the one at Persepolis, the same one that Alexander burned to the ground while drunk. this act is believed to have removed centuries of writings about the tenets of what came to be called Zoroastrianism. but it existed none the less, regardless of a lack of proof of that fact, and that alone is a good premise for things that also exist physically, despite the lack of physical proof.

now on an off-topic note, did you enjoy the "bidet"?

[Kinpa]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where is this supposed quote actually from?? is this the memory of Roy Eugene Davis?? what amounts to "eyewitness testimony"? that is found to be far too unreliable, in case you hadn't yet heard- the first from an Australian expert on the matter: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

then some American sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/health/the-certainty-of-memory-has-its-day-in-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://theweek.com/article/index/221008/is-eyewitness-testimony-too-unreliable-to-trust


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> 1968 Is The New Age Messiah In Our Midst - The Longevity of the Ancient Adepts
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNFdVQkJ5elM4TUk/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1968 All About ECK by Paul Twitchell Booklet SEE Page 84 "New Age Messiah"
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPZURHVk5pckdpV1k/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1969-05 Search Magazine - Twitchell Predicts the Future by James Walker [PT Pseudo]
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPUnJsalBTT0FnWlk/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1969-11-01 Press Courier Oxnard CA - New Religious Leader Makes Inroads on Orthodox Faiths (Press Release)
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTjVMbEpuWmpZN1E/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1970-01-09 Playground Daily News Fort Walton Beach FL - New Religious Leader Makes World Impact (PR OCR text)
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPWjRwN1RsclpVMUU/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1970-01-02 Salina Journal Kansas - Nevadan Says He's High Guru (Press Release)
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNXlxNTJGdlV5R0U/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1969 Original Lancer Book Covers - Eckankar The Key to Secret Worlds
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPTlN6cXMtTDcxckE/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1970 THE SHARIYAT-KI-SUGMAD Volume One - THE TROUBLE WITH RELIGION quote
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPOUwyZGd5TTl1M0k/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1971-09-09 Kirpal Singh not a Master, PT World Avatar, Colonel Peddar Zaskq, PT Pseudos
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPWjkwczQtMEpTclE/view?usp=sharing
>
> 1971-10 The Mystic World - Official Announcement Paulji Translates
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPa2FfcnVlcEtVSDg/view?usp=sharing
>
> fwiw
>
> Peace!

likewise!

[Kinpa]

On Monday, August 13, 2007 10:14:23 PM UTC-4, Etznab wrote:
> Following are three sets of quotes. The second set shows
> so many words by "Rebazar Tarzs". The third set shows so
> many words by Paul Twitchell. The first set - that preceeds
> them both by about 30 years - appears to be "history handed
> down" from one person to another, but history nevertheless.
>
> *********
>
> "The Master is the only man manifesting in history in whom
> individualism and universalism are combined in their full ex-
> pression, in spite of the assertion of some philosophers that
> such a combination is impossible. That is, the Master stands
> alone, is a law unto himself, does what he pleases, has what
> he wants, comes and goes absolutely at his own will, and
> asks no favors of no man. Neither can any man hinder him in
> the execution of his will. He is the only man who has no need
> to ask favors of others. He has all things at his own command.
> If he suffers hardships or inconveniences, that is because he chooses
> to do so for some purpose. He is the supreme giver,
> not a receiver; that is, he always pays for what he gets. He is
> slave to no one, is no time server, is bound by no rule or
> custom outside of himself and is a citizen of the whole world.
> [....]
>
> "There is but one to whom the Master bows in humble submission -
> the Supreme Lord, Sat Purush. His sovereign
> will is the only law the Master recognizes, that and the
> universal law of all laws - love [word "love" in italics]. [....]"
>
> - The Path of the Masters, by "Julian Johnson", copy-
> right 1939, 16th Edition 1997, pp. 180-181
>
> *********
>
> "The ECK traveler is the only man ever manifested in all
> history in whom individualism and universalism are combined
> in their full expression. That is, the spiritual traveler stands
> alone, is a law unto himself, does what he pleases, has what
> he wants, comes and goes absolutely at his own will, and
> asks favors of no man. Neither can any man hinder him in
> the execution of his will. He is the only man who has no need
> to ask favors of others; he has all things at his own command.
> If he suffers hardships, or inconveniences, that is bacause he chooses
> to do so for some purpose. He always pays for what
> he gets. He is not a slave to anyone, is no time server, is not bound
> by any rule or custom outside of himself, and is a
> citizen of the whole world.
>
> "There is but one to whom the spiritual traveler bows in
> humble submission - the Supreme SUGMAD - Lord of All
> things in the highest height of the spiritual worlds. ITS sov-
> ereign law is the only law the spiritual traveler recognizes,
> and the universal law of all laws - Wisdon, Power and
> Freedom!"
>
> - The Far Country, Copyright 1970, by Paul Twitchell
> 2rd Printing 1972, pp. 120-121 ("Rebazar Tarzs speak-
> ing" to Paul Twitchell)
>
> Questions: Did Paul Twitchell use so many words from
> the previous book, but "make believe" that he got it from
> Rebazar Tarzs? What does this say about the history of
> Rebazar Tarzs living in a physical body? not to mention
> stepping in to the breach between one Eck Master and
> another? How can so many words from history equate to
> a "LIVING" Eck Master? These are questions a person
> looking at Eckankar history might ask themself. And how
> the word "Master" / "spiritual traveler", became "Living Eck
> Master" (Or, why?). How would you answer any of these questions?
> Curious.
>
> *********
>
> "The Living ECK Master is the only man, or should I say
> being, who is capable of manifesting both individualism and
> universalism in their full expressions. He is a law unto him-
> self, does what he pleases, has what he wants, comes and
> goes absolutely at his own will, and asks no favors of any
> man. Nobody can hinder him in the execution of his will. All
> things are at his command. He is not a slave to anyone. He
> is no timeserver, is not bound by any rule or custom outside himself,
> and he is a citizen of all the universes of God. He
> bows only to God and not to any person or entity on this
> plane or any other plane.
>
> - ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, Copyright 1969,
> 1987 ECKANKAR, 2nd Printing 1988, p. 67 (3rd paragraph)
>
> Etznab
>
> P.S. Apology if any typos.

At a loss for words?? ;)

[Etznab]

If the were real then why would Twitchell not use a master's actual words from a dialogue. How about I record our conversations, but replace your words with those I found in a book written by somebody else? And change the (your) words however I like?

Does that make sense? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see why Paul would have done something like that unless he was writing fiction, pure and simple.

Maybe Paul believed in something like masters, or wished that there were he but didn't see and have many conversations with them in the physical; but mostly in his dreams? Is this possible? And is it further possible that since the masters didn't come to him, or materialize that he then invented some conversations? After all, if Paul was to become a master himself then he would need a lineage with other masters.

***

"astral library??? do you seriously believe that there is no such thing? you can have a prejudice about the subject because Harold spoke of it, but i would consider it a long step to take out on a weak limb to claim that there is no such place on the Astral Plane. ... ."

My reference to the astral library quote was to highlight what was said, or what was written about where the Eck writings came from and the idea about having to do something about that. The example was relative to other similar quotes on this thread. Harold having discovered a growing list and (according to Doug) not being happy about that.

***

It was nice to discuss the topic for a change. Thanks.

[Kinpa]

>-------------------------------------------------------------
who cares? why do you believe you have some right in the matter to begin with? you do not, and no one forced you to read the writings nor to accept them....and while it may be satisfying to post your OPINION about why he did that, it is nothing but an opinion, it proves nothing other than that you simply leave no room for any of the Masters to be real at all, therefore, even if you saw one, you wouldnt recognize them as being one, you would rationalize it away, which is also making a conclusion with no proof, which is again amateurish at best. assumptions do not ever equal proof and can never be proof of anything other than proof of what YOUR opinion is, and perhaps proof of what YOUR experience is or has been, but using your opinion in this way as if it is supposed to prove a thing simply does not work. it by no means proves that they do not exist or that they were fictions, this isnt complicated. besides which according to YOUR claims, Twitchell plagiarized...as i stated, that does not in any way address the reality or non reality of any Masters anywhere. stop trying to tie 2 separate subjects into one, they are NOT the same thing! and all of your insistence will never make them the same thing. apples do not ever become oranges, regardless of your own assumptions or opinions of them.

> Does that make sense? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see why Paul would have done something like that unless he was writing fiction, pure and simple.

>----------------------------------------------------------
opinion again, you are welcomed to have and keep it, but you still have no choice but to realize that just because YOU cant see it being any other way than that, that does not make it BE the way you imagine it to be. simple fact!

> Maybe Paul believed in something like masters, or wished that there were he but didn't see and have many conversations with them in the physical; but mostly in his dreams? Is this possible? And is it further possible that since the masters didn't come to him, or materialize that he then invented some conversations? After all, if Paul was to become a master himself then he would need a lineage with other masters.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
all assumptions, so what difference would it make? there is not one thing that would lead you to this conclusion other than your own lack of belief about them, which is the same as saying that you have already made your conclusions about it and that limits what you are able to perceive, you will not accept anything other than a physical proof....what makes you decide that PT couldnt possibly have left the body consciously when NOT asleep or dreaming? and what proves that no Master ever came to him or materialized in the physical? is that because you simply do not believe such a thing is possible? you are going to have to do better than that, all you have is plagiarism, and thats the end of it, stop beating a dead horse man!

> ***
>
> "astral library??? do you seriously believe that there is no such thing? you can have a prejudice about the subject because Harold spoke of it, but i would consider it a long step to take out on a weak limb to claim that there is no such place on the Astral Plane. ... ."
>
> My reference to the astral library quote was to highlight what was said, or what was written about where the Eck writings came from and the idea about having to do something about that. The example was relative to other similar quotes on this thread. Harold having discovered a growing list and (according to Doug) not being happy about that.
>
> ***

-------------------------------------------------------------------
i see it as being not really important, who cares? i do not, and there are a great many others who also do not. and none of us particularly care to convert anyone to Eckankar either, thats just the way it is....and i notice that withj all of this fictional Master stuff you have not one explanation as to how so many people who had never even heard of Eckankar, much less ready ANY ECK book, could have so many meetings with these very real Masters....that also happen to GENERALLY look like the Diane Stanley paintings, which btw are not very accurate at all, regardless of how she came by the images to paint, not one of them literally looks like her paintings or illustrations, but generally one could say yes, they look much like that....

>
> It was nice to discuss the topic for a change. Thanks.

for a change? LOL just because i dont say what you and Sean would like to hear does not make it off topic, not that there are ANY laws on google groups anyhow, there is no way to make ANYONE stay on any topic, thats called freedom, you need to learn how to roll with it and still be able to converse, much like physical life....not a terribly big deal in my opinion...

[Etznab]

Why downplay that witness? Especially since he was the one (was he not?) who told us about Orion Magazine refusing to publish any more of Paul Twitchell's writings due to the high amount of plagiarism?

" ... In the late 1960s a series of Paul's articles appeared in Orion Magazine, published by Christian Spiritual Alliance, based in Lakemont, Georgia. My articles were also published in Orion Magazine and I knew the editors very well. On one occasion they informed me that they had rejected Paul's then most recent article because he had used entire paragraphs from a book on Mental Science by Judge Thomas Troward. After that incident his articles were no longer accepted by the editors of Orion Magazine. I knew about this situation long before David Lane wrote about [it] in his book, which was published years later. ... ."

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/Roy$20Eugene$20Davis$20Orion$20Magazine/alt.religion.eckankar/ZvCKdhJfXCo/0maolXK2yoIJ

Like David Lane, Ford Johnson and others, Roy Eugene Davis provided some factual information that wasn't generally known by most Eckists. One can debate parts of what people said for accuracy when 100% of the material is reviewed as a whole. One can find inaccurate memories about specific details and dates as well; which is common. However, this does not discount the accurate parts which can stand on their own.

Why would Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, not like finding examples of plagiarism? Not like finding a growing list? Also, why would Harold appear to suggest (in so many words illustrated in the Astral Library talk) that something would have to be done about the writings someday and that he [Harold] might be the one to have to do it?

It is telling, IMO, that Paul Twitchell had been regarded as a master; Living Eck Master, Mahanta, the Living Eck Master, etc. And yet Harold Klemp also referred to him as a "master compiler". So one could possibly then ask the questions:

"Was that something that the modern-day founder of Eckankar was? A master compiler? And a plagiarist? Etc.? One who compiled the writings and sayings of other teachers and gurus, but when it came to citing the names of the authors and books he cited masters of the Eckankar teaching / religion instead?

Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp compiled as well. IMO they profusely compiled the writings and sayings compiled by Paul Twitchell. Iow, they parroted much of what Paul had gathered, borrowed, plagiarized, etc. and continued not to cite books and authors from which the material came. In fact, one might argue Darwin and Harold were at some point both under Paul Twitchell's "spell" and they didn't know, or couldn't believe the extent to which material came NOT from the Eck Masters illustrated by Paul, but from other New Age writers and Gurus, etc. instead. This is why I feel there was a need to admit that Paul Twitchell was not a God, and / or that something had to be done about the writings.

What was done?

Quoting:

"So Glad You Asked!

...

"What about claims that the modern-day founder of Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, borrowed freely from other authors in writing his Eckankar books?

"The golden threads of the ECK teachings had been scattered around the world down through the ages. Some were in books and manuscripts no longer remembered or known by the general public.

"Remote writings, little-known truths, and the most accurate parts of what had been given in the past were gathered up by Paul Twitchell--honed, refined, and focused so the public could benefit directly from the pure ECK teachings today.

"He was a master compiler. Because of his work and his writings, the ageless teachings of the Light and Sound are now at your fingertips. ... ."

http://www.eckankar.org/FAQ/index.html#paultwitchell

What I suspect was done, one thing, was that (in so many words) the leader of Eckankar admitted that Paul Twitchell was a master compiler. As for whether he gathered up "the most accurate parts of what had been given" one would need to verify that for themselves. And in order to research, study and verify it they would need to know if the writings had a source in the form of an author, and an author's book, etc. This way a person can check the source and learn more about it.

I would ask another question. That after Paul Twitchell and Eckankar "honed, refined, and focused" compiled material did they do it with respect for the truth? Or was it done rather to further the cause of the "Eckankar" authors? the "Eckankar" enterprise, organization, corporation and religion? If the latter be the case then yes, IMO one could argue that "it's what everybody else does"; practically every other organized religion. And yes, others do and have plagiarized. They do and have taken from other traditions, rewrote material and history and turned it into pseudo-history and pseudo {"man made")-religion. IMHO, however, this is ultimately a disrespect for truth in favor of human imagination that either A.) Doesn't know the truth. or B.) Can't handle the truth.

Religions and Governments do and have edited history in order to further their causes. At times they have invented history, or lied about history; and as a result exploited people's and nations both psychologically and materially. IMO this practice should not be condoned and propagated as if above the law. Not without an indication, or explicit stamp in bold letters to serve as a warning: The following includes a lot of fiction and pseudo man-made material not actually and / or historically true. Read at your own risk.

There is another Davis (not Eugene Davis) known to the history of the Eckankar writings. He was the author for the 2000 book: The Rosetta Stone of God, by James Davis. Edited by Joan Klemp, Anthony Moore, and Mary Carroll Moore. This book came out the same year as Doug Marman's Dialogue in the Age of Criticism. A few years later Davis wrote:

Quoting:

Being the author of a book on the Mahanta titled THE ROSETTA STONE OF GOD, I would like to add my voice to those who have chosen to leave Eckankar. I quietly left Eckankar several years ago, having come to many of the same conclusions Ford arrived at in his own book. At the time I left, I wrote a letter to Harold saying I would make no announcements about my leaving. But I have since learned that it is a very "open secret" that I left - not through any acts of my own, but from various Eckists in who work at the main office, and a few others. So I now feel it is appropriate to say a few words about my leaving, and about Ford's book. [....]

http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/]
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBBprn.asp?st=70&page=186
http://thetruth-seeker.com/vanillaforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=58

One of the things I remembered about Davis was how he felt about people who went and "worshiped" a single individual ... putting them on a pedestal far above where that individual even felt (or knew) that they should be. I might add that this seems as if "it" was the very same type of Godlike-ideal that some people projected onto Paul Twitchell and that Harold warned we could not afford to do.

Quoting:

"The Real Foundation

"Paradoxical as it may seem, my point in bringing out all of this has been to strengthen your faith in the Mahanta -- but not at the expense of making a god out of the Mahanta's vehicle, which is the Living ECK Master. It's a price we cannot afford to pay. As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"

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

This, to me, suggests there is the Mahanta and the Mahanta's vehicle. It also (to me) suggests many other things as well that I believe to be very insightful.

IMO this is not saying that one should sacrifice faith in the Mahanta to the extent of trading that for a Living Eck Master who may, or may not be telling the truth; among other things. And to me the word "Mahanta" is symbolic of something; not the least of which is knowing the difference between fact and fiction and what was historically true vs. what people want to imagine.

[Etznab]

It sounds a tad reactionary what you wrote, given the amount of times the word "you" appeared followed by your own opinionated statements.

We don't write the same. Ever since the beginning I have left a lot of room for many things and I continue to do so. Rather, I see it as reactionary rhetoric that pits people more against me as a person than against the discussion topics I choose. This is understandable because I am not so intimidated as others who have abandoned this group over the years, or who could not stomach the likes of what has haunted this group from the beginning.

People don't particularly like that I question the existence of invisible beings and masters. And yet I also suspect that to some extent everybody does question. It is natural and rational to do so; not to mention a sane thing to question the existence of invisible beings and voices in the head, etc.

A little more science and a little less religion perhaps.

Btw, there is a reason for the word "living" in the title Living Master. That is a distinction making it different from fictional and imaginary master.

[Kinpa]

----------------------------------------------------------------
because eyewitnesses are simply NOT reliable, period, it is a well known fact at this point in time, no one has to like it, but everyone HAS to deal with that reality, there is simply far too much evidence that eyewitnesses proved false memory testimony that convicted people innocent of the crimes the eyewitnesses charged them with. you dont have to like it, but eyewitnesses are found to be not at all reliable, and there IS much evidence of this fact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
in the end however, this is simply your opinion, and that is really all there is to that, so do not claim otherwise, YOUR opinion is simply your own opinion, and simply because what you have decided appears to be the most factual information, it is by no means a proven fact, there is a distinct difference between the two, yet you are constantly demanding that others take your opinions as reliable facts when they simply are not and can never be...i have never told you to abandon your opinions, i have only said that are welcomed to having them, but there is NO reason that i, or anyone else should accept them as fact, for if we did, you would then be guilty of the very same thing you accuse PT and HK of....deception, whether purposeful or not makes no difference, if you are unable to see how that is the very same thing, you might take another look at it...your opinion is not necessarily fact, so stop speaking of it as if it were, otherwise i can only come to the conclusion that you might be somewhat delusional, yet one more thing that is claimed to be traits of these other 2 people...funny how that keeps happening

[Kinpa]

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course you do Etznab, my opinion is not one that you are comfortable with, i have no problem with that as i have no care for what anyone thinks, i am comfortable enough in my own skin and do not require acceptance or permission from anyone for anything....that "you" was put in there to point out what is obvious to me, in case you were unable to see it, that YOUR opinion is YOURS, that is fine, but no one else is required to agree with it, and if they do not, they are not "mythical thinkers" or any of the other wikipedia terms that have been applied to me but those with no degrees or education in psychology....i can also say that your deciding that my words seemed reactionary is a facet of just how much your ego is weighing in on your perceptions, but hey, they are your own so if that is the case, i consider that a personal situation that has nothing to do with me, so i will leave it at that.

> We don't write the same. Ever since the beginning I have left a lot of room for many things and I continue to do so. Rather, I see it as reactionary rhetoric that pits people more against me as a person than against the discussion topics I choose. This is understandable because I am not so intimidated as others who have abandoned this group over the years, or who could not stomach the likes of what has haunted this group from the beginning.

> ------------------------------------------------------------
see comments above....and to be utterly clear, i used no rhetoric at all, i stated my own perceptions, and addressed them not only at you personally, but also at the topic at hand, not really a huge big deal in my opinion...personally i find it impossible to be intimidated by anyone, so i personally have no desire to intimidate you, that wouldnt serve any of my interests, but as for confrontation, i love it, i have yet to run from one because i consider that an easy thing to do, again, not a huge big deal, just a normal daily thing to deal with in all areas of life

> People don't particularly like that I question the existence of invisible beings and masters. And yet I also suspect that to some extent everybody does question. It is natural and rational to do so; not to mention a sane thing to question the existence of invisible beings and voices in the head, etc.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have no problem with that, because that is your own personal choice, my experiences are quite different from those, so while i can understand why you have those doubts, that still does not amount to a whole lot, regardless of the way you want to go with it, it will always be your own job to overcome those doubts, or prove them reality, and the same goes for every individual....personally, i can see being and things that others cannot, i can also leave my body consciously at any time...if that sounds crazy to you and/or Sean, that is fine, i can live with that, but i also can prove the reality of it to myself along with an entire host of 3rd parties that have the experiences...PT's claims are just not THAT unreasonable, if you or anyone finds them to be, that is fine, but you still have to admit that you are limiting yourself, and if that to you is "sane" (another merely mental term, why this limit on things?) then that is where you are and those are the limits you have placed upon yourself, it is not PT's or HK's fault in any way

> A little more science and a little less religion perhaps.
>
> Btw, there is a reason for the word "living" in the title Living Master. That is a distinction making it different from fictional and imaginary master.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
religion is mental, and man made, i have no problem with using the word fictional concerning that...but you must also understand that science has very little to do with facts, everything is a THEORY, not proven, just suspicions...if you want to apply those same PHYSICAL standards to spirituality, then i wont stop you, but you will still never be able to use those things as proofs that the experiences of others are all in the head, or any other mental condition.....did you ever put this much effort and investigation into trying to leave your body? i am curious because many times you seem to indicate that such a thing is not possible......the distinction you make about the word "living" is your own, but that is another thing you simply cannot prove one way or the other, so it cannot be used as a debate tool, if someone wants to follow that assumption, they can, if not, they dont have to! easy as pie! to EACH,THEIR own!

[Etznab]

"... but you must also understand that science has very little to do with facts, everything is a THEORY, not proven, just suspicions ... ."

I wasn't referring to science fiction.

Science has very little to do with facts?

Everything is theory?

I don't believe you.

[Kinpa]

science is 98% theory silly boy, have you not ever noticed how it continues to change? scientists do very little work with facts, they simply do not have facts to use, they come up with theories, then try to prove or disprove those, however, that is a very slow job, and since they cannot actually go themselves into the heart of the sun, or to other galaxies, they are, always have been, and continue to be, theories, not facts, if you do not know this then your views are far more prejudiced than i had realized, and your ability to perceive much less than i had thought previously...in the end i care not for whatever you believe, i do not use belief, i find it silly, so you go ahead and enjoy believing, ill go forward having actual experiences instead ;) almost bidet time again, but you wont be the first on this night, which proves there was no suggestion LOL around 8:20 pm your time, enjoy

[Kinpa]

absolutely NO chance of any sort of a reaction to a suggestion, please do note, i said nothing until it was already happening...you were eating at the time and had to run...didnt quite make it however did you...then just when you thought it was over...another surprise ;) how is belief working for you now? you can deny it all you want, but you still made a huge mess in your pants, but you werent the only one...someone else mopped up the mess on the floor with their pajama pants, only to get into the shower and lather up to have it happen all over again.....i couldnt make this stuff up man! LOL enjoy~!!!

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 13:47:41 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:

Kinpa, you're an idiot!

(shrug)

[Peetee Aitchei]

You give the good eckists a bad name.

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 15:18:54 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:

My view is irrelevant, there are external objective yardsticks that apply.

adjective
stupid, simple, slow, thick, dull, naive, dim, dense, dumb (informal), deficient, crass, gullible, simple-minded, dozy (Brit. informal), witless, stolid, dopey (informal), moronic, obtuse, brainless, cretinous, unintelligent, half-witted, slow on the uptake (informal), braindead (informal), dumb-ass (slang), doltish, slow-witted, woodenheaded (informal) a bunch of idiot journalists

think maybe the man of la mancha and tilting at windmills.
creating an imaginary argument and debate to have with imaginary characters
who don't exist anywhere but in someone's imagination.
seeing things that are not written and don't exist.
imaginary beliefs and opinions held by imaginary people but then arguing with
them is the same as arguing with one's self.
It's good work, when you can get it.

Mocking up imaginary attitudes and fixated beliefs to be offended by and then
to fight the good fight against .... puts lead in your pencil they say.

(shrug)

Like sooooooooo over it.

[Etznab]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 at 8:23:14 AM UTC-6, Etznab wrote:
> On Friday, August 31, 2007 11:18:13 PM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

> > For trivial purposes and future reference, the following
> > represesents a transcription of two paragraphs from the
> > 1973 copyright - Letters to Gail, Vol. Two - of letter 89
> > dated June 28, 1963 listed in Table of Contents under
> > the title: How to Find the Guru. (all words illustrated
> > in italics)
> >
> > "[....]
> >
> > A genuine master is the super-man of history, and by virtue
> > of his development, he has become the prototype of the race,
> > the most splendid specimen of manhood, the nobelest of the
> > noble. He has the best of health, a high, keen, penetrating
> > mind, quick of wit and sound of judgement. He may not be
> > educated by formal education, but his mind has undergone
> > the hardest training and discipline. He is the only man ever

> > manifested in all history in whom individualism and

> > universalism are combined in their full expression; this in

> > spite of the assertion of some philosophers that such a

> > combination is impossible. But you see the Master stands
> > alone, for he is a law unto himself, does what he pleases
> > and he asks favors of no man.

> >
> > "Neither can any man hinder him in the execution of his

> > will, for he has all things at his own command, and if he
> > suffers hardships, or inconvieniences, that is because he

> > chooses to do so for some purpose. He is the supreme

> > giver, not a receiver and he always pays for what he gets.

> > He is slave to no one, is no time server, is bound by no

> > rule or custom outside of himself, and he is a citizen of
> > the whole world. His life and teachings are universal. He
> > belongs to no race or time, but to all nations and all
> > times. He is a paradox in religion, teaches no theology,
> > has none, yet he is the most religious of all. His system
> > is not a religion, yet it leads to the most complete
> > religious experience, and the happiest, for he is
> > absolutely universal in all his teachings. He has no
> > creed, yet he never antagonizes any creed, sect, or
> > institution. He finds no fault with anyone or anything,
> > yet he draws the sharpest lines between the good and
> > bad. He considers human weakness only an illness
> > brought on by abberations or engrams.
> >
> > [....]"
> >
> > [Based on: Letters to Gail, Vol. Two, Copyright 1977,
> > Fourth Printing 1986, p. 126 (2nd & 3rd paragraphs).
> >
> > The terms "MAHANTA" & "Living ECK Master"
> > are not illustrated in this letter.
> >
> > Etznab
>
> I like this thread because it began with quotes about a "master". However, the oldest Eckankar version (from L.T.G. 2) is something even more interesting to me on account of the time it was written.
>
> Btw, Who does the research for Eckankar? I wonder. Many people (I suspect) believed the Eckankar master was somehow special, or unique. Also (I suspect) until they find Paul Twitchell, the founder, copying from other people's books, his successor's (Darwin Gross') secretary denying any plagiarism and then his successor (Harold Klemp) finding a "growing list" of which he was reportedly not so happy. How are these Eckankar masters in any way superior in intellect compared with the average person. In fact, in some ways they look (to me) less than average. Who copies spiritual information from books, attributes that to someone else, founds a "new" spiritual path and religion upon the information and then dawns the title of "master", etc.? Paul Twitchell? After Paul is dead and questions are asked, Who makes believe there was no plagiarism and that Paul Twitchell was his "master"? Darwin Gross? After many more years and many more questions, Who then begins research about Paul Twitchell, about examples of plagiarism and discovers a growing list? Harold Klemp?
>
> Why weren't Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp aware of these things from the very beginning? And why didn't they tell people about all these things from the very beginning? Is it because 1.) They didn't know? 2.) They didn't want to know about it. or 3.) They knew, but didn't want to talk about it? Perhaps there are other reasons to choose from.
>
> After it was all said and done ... actually it was 1980 and before Harold gave his talks about Paul Twitchell, the former 1st President of Eckankar, personal friend and doctor of Paul Twitchell went on record saying:
>
> Date: June 19, 1980
>
> My wife and I opened the first Eck class in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul [Paul Twitchell] many times and was the main speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away. Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied. I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what he had done and his answer was "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. As far as Darwin (Gross) is concerned, my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master. I don't think that a Master would divorce his wife and seek many other female companions.
>
>                                              Signed: Louis Bluth, MD.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434
>
> The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master.
>
> That was 1980 and before Harold Klemp became the leader of Eckankar (1981). Well, I wonder why Darwin Gross was trying to find a replacement as early as 1980. Why he divorced his wife (Also the former wife of Paul Twitchell, and the woman who helped appoint Darwin Gross as Living Eck Master in the first place. - 1971) I wonder if it had anything to do with David Lane's book; information - a lot of which - Eckankar was NOT in the habit of making public or distributing to its members. (I'm mostly referring to a growing list of plagiarisms and the plagiarized, or copied from author's names.)
>
> People in the past have alleged coverup. That certain information was covered up. However, Harold Klemp already did come out in the 1980s and admit a number of things. IMO, however, the biggest coverup is the real identity of Rebazar Tarzs and a number of other Eck Masters. I too suspect some form of coverup in this regard, because these "Eck Masters" are like "foundational" material; the removal of which could cause people to ask the #1 questions: What about the Living Eck Master? Where did he get all of his information about Eckankar from?
> If not from the Eck Masters then from who? Or, what?


Btw, Who does the research for Eckankar? I wonder. Many people (I suspect) believed the Eckankar master was somehow special, or unique. Also (I suspect) until they find Paul Twitchell, the founder, copying from other people's books, his successor's (Darwin Gross') secretary denying any plagiarism and then his successor (Harold Klemp) finding a "growing list" of which he was reportedly not so happy. How are these Eckankar masters in any way superior in intellect compared with the average person. In fact, in some ways they look (to me) less than average. Who copies spiritual information from books, attributes that to someone else, founds a "new" spiritual path and religion upon the information and then dawns the title of "master", etc.? Paul Twitchell? After Paul is dead and questions are asked, Who makes believe there was no plagiarism and that Paul Twitchell was his "master"? Darwin Gross? After many more years and many more questions, Who then begins research about Paul Twitchell, about examples of plagiarism and discovers a growing list? Harold Klemp?

Why weren't Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp aware of these things from the very beginning? And why didn't they tell people about all these things from the very beginning? Is it because 1.) They didn't know? 2.) They didn't want to know about it. or 3.) They knew, but didn't want to talk about it? Perhaps there are other reasons to choose from.

After it was all said and done ... actually it was 1980 and before Harold gave his talks about Paul Twitchell, the former 1st President of Eckankar, personal friend and doctor of Paul Twitchell went on record saying:

Date: June 19, 1980

My wife and I opened the first Eck class in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul [Paul Twitchell] many times and was the main speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away. Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied. I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what he had done and his answer was "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. As far as Darwin (Gross) is concerned, my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master. I don't think that a Master would divorce his wife and seek many other female companions.

Signed: Louis Bluth, MD.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434

The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master.

...

"actually a majority of new ECKists are completely aware of all of this"

I seriously doubt that, but instead would argue Kinpa is probably speaking with forked tongue in hopes of being the superior minimalist.

Here is the information again, so the MAJORITY really can be aware. Start at the top of thread and begin reading.

***

[Henosis Sage]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 13:34:59 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:53:26 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:

> > On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 05:50:52 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 14, 2014 7:28:29 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 15 December 2014 01:23:14 UTC+11, Etznab wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --------------
> > > >
> > > > RE PT says:

> > > > The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it
> > > > better than I could I copied it."
> > > >

> > Have you considered doing a remedial weeding and whiteting course?
> >
> > Couldn't hurt. But someone should report your post to the Google Mind
> > Police for being so far off topic it should be deleted.
> >
> > Go start your own thread to talk about the things you want to talk about.
> > Your personal issues have nothing to do with this thread.
>
> are you quite finished whining??? it seems as if you are having personal problems, i actually have none! if you would like to report me, then stop whining and go do it, otherwise,stuff a sock in it, you have no ability to decide who gets to post here and who does not, so deal with it! as for remedial, are you enjoying the view in the mirror???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


17 DEC 2014

KINPAPADAM CLAIMED : "it seems as if you are having personal problems, i actually have none!"

REALLY ROTFLMFAO NOW

[Henosis Sage]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 13:40:52 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:

> you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!

KINPAPADAM PLAYING VOODOO GURU SAID:

"You will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!"

Kinda fits with PATRICIA .... and why keep looking in the corner

and what about the Mice Etznab?

17 DEC 2014 KINPAPADAM CLAIMED :

"it seems as if you are having personal problems, i actually have none!"

MATT SHARPE BELIEVES HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PERSONAL PROBLEMS ????

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe OH BOY ... if you say so (humour the lunatic, you might get away)

AND THEN THERE WAS

and Patricia left you, and she won't be back! She says you're far toi addicted to google groups and finds your behavior childish...and she is correct! writing at a 3rd grade level!

and seanella is the homosexual that loves him

NONE of the above is evidence against Eckankar...you simply cannot make a religion illegal you idiot!

"Fuck yourself you dirty stinking cunt! LMAO! You're a joke!!!"

"You will see those ECK Masters when you die LMAO! And you WILL beg them to help you too!"

"Make me you drunken cirrhosis! Have you filed those charges yet?"

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!search/authormsg$3Aalt.religion.eckankar$2CeR61xROTuZEJ$20after$3A2015$2F4$2F1$20before$3A2015$2F5$2F1%7Csort:date%7Cspell:false

NO PROBLEMS WITH MATT SHARPE .... NUFFIN' WRONG WITH CLARK (aka Superman!)

<smiling>

[Henosis Sage]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KINPAPADAM DECLARED SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY:

"I did not react, and what you both had been saying was nothing that
would cause any reaction"

"If i wanted to have a reaction, trust me, i would be certain to let you

know, however, you and Sean simply are not THAT important to anyone..."

lolololololololololol cats!

[Henosis Sage]

-------------------------------------------------------------


KINPAPADAM SPEAKS:

"i see it as being not really important, who cares? i do not, and there are a
great many others who also do not. and none of us particularly care to convert
anyone to Eckankar either, thats just the way it is....and i notice that withj
all of this fictional Master stuff you have not one explanation as to how so
many people who had never even heard of Eckankar, much less ready ANY ECK book,
could have so many meetings with these very real Masters....that also happen
to GENERALLY look like the Diane Stanley paintings, which btw are not very
accurate at all, regardless of how she came by the images to paint, not one of
them literally looks like her paintings or illustrations, but generally one
could say yes, they look much like that....

LIKE THIS DIANA STANLEY ARTWORK - USED WITHOUT HER OR ECKANKAR'S PERMISSION
ON THE DOUB MARMAN WEBSITE ????
http://spiritualdialogues.com/2014/07/prajapati/

If "doug" could "report" on an "inner" experien with "prajapati" - then how TWITCHELL couldn;t and had to use other peoples WRITINGS to animate Prjapati &
rebaza and gopal and fubbi and rumi and shams and the lords of the planes and sugmad and the shariyat and and and and and and ........ ????

"Discernment isn't Free" -- Doug didn't get it - so he didn't publish my insightful comments!

But this is how they treat a TRUTH Master always ... they run away!!!

[Henosis Sage]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Sharpe has a Science PhD Degree from Eckankar University MN

"scientists do very little work with facts, they simply do not have
facts to use, they come up with theories"

The man is brilliant !!!

[Henosis Sage]

KINPA ........... YOU ARE STILL AN IDIOT 4 MONTHS LATER - AND ALWAYS WILL BE !!!

[Kinpa]

Stop flattering yourself, you are not, and have never been a "truth Master".....you are a drunken piece of shit that lies around drunk all day pretending to be a tough guy on a COMPUTER! And why are you all taped up? What is that all about?

[Henosis Sage]

-------------------------

RE: "And why are you all taped up? What is that all about?"

Ahaa.

RE ".....you are a drunken piece of shit that lies around drunk all day"

ahaa .. yeah sure, sure ... whatever you say Matt.

You go girl!

I'll stick with being the Henois Sage, the Living Truth Master ......

[Kinpa]

Enjoy your delusions, as usual! If any of these fancy names were true, they'd have been bestowed by others and of course, they are not! Ahhh the constant hubris! I hope you are able to enjoy that even a tenth as much as I am! LOL

[Etznab]

Insisting and name calling.

[Etznab]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 11:59:05 AM UTC-5, Kinpa wrote:

Insisting and name calling.

[Etznab]

Kinpa writes: Stop flattering yourself, you are not, and have never been a "truth Master".....you are a drunken piece of shit that lies around drunk all day pretending to be a tough guy on a COMPUTER! And why are you all taped up? What is that all about?

INSISTING AND NAME CALLING

[Etznab]

Several other possibilities? Great. Let's talk about them. This is the reason I come to a.r.e. To research this stuff.

[Etznab]

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 8:40:52 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:34:59 PM UTC-5, Kinpa wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:53:26 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:

> > > Have you considered doing a remedial weeding and whiteting course?
> > >
> > > Couldn't hurt. But someone should report your post to the Google Mind
> > > Police for being so far off topic it should be deleted.
> > >
> > > Go start your own thread to talk about the things you want to talk about.
> > > Your personal issues have nothing to do with this thread.
> >
> > are you quite finished whining??? it seems as if you are having personal problems, i actually have none! if you would like to report me, then stop whining and go do it, otherwise,stuff a sock in it, you have no ability to decide who gets to post here and who does not, so deal with it! as for remedial, are you enjoying the view in the mirror???
>

> you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!

What were you speaking of here?

"you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!"

Ever hear about the law of psychic space?

[Etznab]

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 10:19:53 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:11:39 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 13:40:52 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> >
> >
> >

> > > you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!
> >
> >

> > What Magik. Saying that was a surprise. Does it count? LOL
>
> magik? no, that stuff is for amateurs lol, i have no time for such regardless of the spelling. it must have been the wind after all! LOL

It must have been the wind you say?

[Etznab]

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 10:58:25 AM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:16:24 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

> > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:19:53 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:11:39 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 13:40:52 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What Magik. Saying that was a surprise. Does it count? LOL
> > >
> > > magik? no, that stuff is for amateurs lol, i have no time for such regardless of the spelling. it must have been the wind after all! LOL
> >

> > How do some Eckists react. This is a fine example.
>
> do stop flattering yourselves Etznab, i did not react, and what you both had been saying was nothing that would cause any reaction. In fact you have no idea what those words i spoke meant, and likewise it is rather self-centered to claim being able to apply YOUR definition to them...are you needing attention or something? If i wanted to have a reaction, trust me, i would be certain to let you know, however, you and Sean simply are not THAT important to anyone, the world does not revolve around the two of you, although it is quite hard to miss your desire for it to do so. Whatever gets YOU through the night! It's alright, it's alright...

I've seen some strange kind of words you posted and some odd thread titles. Why don't you try being a little more articulate? Try starting with this example. EXplain yourself.

"In fact you have no idea what those words i spoke meant"

O.K. Then say it another way so I can know what you meant.

[Etznab]

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 11:11:10 AM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:52:31 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

> > Paul Twitchell and Eckankar 'spin-off' teachings today
> >
> >
> > Akatha http://akatha12.weebly.com/ (Sri Timothy Arnold)
> > Vardankar http://vardankar.com/ (Sri Allen Feldman)
> > Marmankar http://spiritualdialogues.com/ (Doug Marman)
> > Akshara Vidya http://aksharavidya.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=21
> > Master Path http://www.masterpath.org/ (Sri Gary Olsen)
> > ATOM http://www.atom.org/ (Sri Darwin Gross deceased)
> > SFS http://spiritualfreedomsatsang.org/ (Sri Michael Turner)
> > MSIA http://www.msia.org/ (Sri John R Hinkins deceased)
> > Dhunami http://www.dhunami.org/ (Sri Paul Marche)
> > The Way of Truth http://thewayoftruth.org/ (Sri Michael Owens)
> >
> > And a number of these groups share the same masters. O.K.? However, they don't all draw / paint the exact same pictures or put the same words into the masters mouths.
> >
> > Kinpa. Don't you remember Eckists who followed the leader of Eckankar, had their own experiences, and Darwin Gross repeated those in court? This indicates that ultimately the reigning leader of Eckankar can legally negate experiences had with Eck Masters if they are not to his liking. Example: If someone has an experience with the masters who say that Harold has to go. See? It has happened with Darwin Gross and it happened with Graham Forsyth. No doubt there are many other examples of Harold, Eckankar and clergy TELLING other people what their experiences actually mean.
> >
> > All of the posturing - not just by "Eckankar", but by many different spin-offs - is an indication that people are having experiences for sure. But also there is a hierarchy, and there are pseudo man-made hierarchies and self-appointed clergy parroting, mocking, chiming, shouting and defining what is what. Harold says the individual has to decide what works for them. Masters who are animated by words from other people's books does not work for everybody.
> >
> > There is a "constant" here with religions. They all have some form of hierarchy and some form of human agency representing a position in the hierarchy which stands "above" all other people, all other members, according to their executive power.
> >
> > Belief can be powerful. Even when people believe in false information and / or do not have the facts. Religions can be powerful too. They can take in many, many people and many, many dollars. If you wanted to control, or have influence over religions in general ... How could one do that? First one could take the teachings of other religions and splice, slice and dice them into the same bowl. One could stir for a long long time until they appear to blend and become one thing. One could make a cookie, or ginger-bread man out of the dough and call it the "Godman on Earth"! A being who represents God on Earth! Imagination can fashion many. many things that people are prone to believe.
> >
> > Let Harold (or Eckankar) explain why Rebazar Tarzs and other Eck Masters appear to plagiarize other people's writings, even switch identities at will. Either it is plagiarism and the Eck Master's names were created as fictions to conceal the identities and teachings of the actual authors, or the Eck Masters - as Harold said they were - are real. Either way, there is still a need to explain the similarity between what Eck Masters allegedly said and what other people had written in books years before Eckankar was even coined as a word.
> >
> > I seriously doubt that anybody has located every single plagiarism and every single author, or source for Paul Twitchell and Eckankar's writings. So until the vast majority is found, compiled, illustrated and studied I believe one should refrain from making blanket statements about the Eck Masters and whether real, or not. Otherwise one would be simply guessing. It doesn't mean people can't guess correctly, but for those who are off the mark and who lead others astray I would call that a very bad karma.
>
> is there ANY logic being used here at all? anywhere? you, like everyone else in the world, know that Paul Twitchell wrote the books, so, if plagiarism took place, that was done by him alone....besides the fact that if i person SPEAKS the words of another's book out loud to another person, that is not plagiarism, nothing is quite that simple in a court of law, or have you never been in one to learn this fact? your opinion about blanket statements about ECK Masters is fine, opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one, so not a problem, however, you still do not get to pass judgment on others based on these things that TO YOU seem to make so much sense, the simple fact is that not everyone agrees with you, and that is a thing you will one day need to learn to deal with. about PT's plagiarisms, i've said it before, and i'll say it again, the majority simply do not care in the least, the people that you speak to regularly do, which is also fine, but you have never gone out into any group of people that you had previously had no contact with and asked them about it now have you? that does not create an accurate poll, throwing these ideas around amongst the same people time after time. Religion has existed in various forms for thousands of years, and sacred writings (to whichever religion) have always been used and or plagiarised by those reformers who eventually began a new religion, so in that context, plagiarism has always happened, and has never been considered a very big deal by anyone until the 70's at best. it is what it is, and it is not what it is not. Paul Twitchell did not invent plagiarism...what you say about belief is for the most part true, however i will not debate that point because i do not use belief, i do not particularly consider it a valuable thing, but that's just me. Everyone else can do things the way they choose, its no skin off of mine!

What do you mean by this? I saw you mention a belief that Paul wrote the books. So who are you referring to here?

"besides the fact that if i person SPEAKS the words of another's book out loud to another person, that is not plagiarism"

Who is speaking to who? Can you answer this?

***

The majority of people you are speaking for again?

"i've said it before, and i'll say it again, the majority simply do not care in the least, the people that you speak to regularly do, which is also fine, but you have never gone out into any group of people that you had previously had no contact with and asked them about it now have you?"

Aside from the posts on a.r.e. I don't believe you know the people I speak to regularly. Do you?

And, yes. I have asked other groups of people.

***

I think this os one of the "talking points" I referred to earlier.

"Religion has existed in various forms for thousands of years, and sacred writings (to whichever religion) have always been used and or plagiarised by those reformers who eventually began a new religion, so in that context, plagiarism has always happened, and has never been considered a very big deal by anyone until the 70's at best. it is what it is, and it is not what it is not."

How about the making of pseudo history and religion in the process? What do you think about this? Should it be encouraged? Like when someone calls a group "the chosen people"? Do you agree with this? Because Eckankar had to retract that kind of talk . Are you aware of this?

[Henosis Sage]

------------

Faarrrrrrkkkkkkk !!!

Did he really say this?

"besides the fact that if i person SPEAKS the words of another's book
out loud to another person, that is not plagiarism"

WOW ... like you know, WOW !!!

[Kinpa]

Feel free to prove otherwise, by all means!

[Henosis Sage]

RE: "... prove otherwise ..."

WHY WOULD I NEED TO DO THAT?

THE KEY QUESTION IS .. WHY DID YOU EVEN SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE ???????????????

It's OK though Maddie .. I know you won't even understand the question.

(shaking my head)

HE's LOST IT - TOTALLY

[Kinpa]

Why did you respond at all??

[Etznab]

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 at 10:11:15 PM UTC-6, Henosis Sage wrote:

> On Sunday, 21 December 2014 15:06:30 UTC+11, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 December 2014 13:47:41 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> >
> > Kinpa, you're an idiot!
> >
> > (shrug)
>

> You give the good eckists a bad name.

I agree that Kinpa gives the good eckists a bad name.

Making up lies about people messing in their pants? I think that is worse than immature.

[Etznab]

Example:

"... i said nothing until it was already happening...you were eating at the time and had to run...didnt quite make it however did you...then just when you thought it was over...another surprise ;) how is belief working for you now? you can deny it all you want, but you still made a huge mess in your pants, but you werent the only one...someone else mopped up the mess on the floor with their pajama pants, only to get into the shower and lather up to have it happen all over again.....i couldnt make this stuff up man! LOL enjoy~!!!"

I know of no other Eckists who write like that. Only Kinpa.

[Henosis Sage]

a date correction ::

These comments didn't become widely known until David lane published his
TMOASM paperback book in April 1983.

(snip)

But what Bluth had said about Twitchell, Gail and Darwin in this letter
wasn't publicly known about until Easter of 1983.

Darwin Gross is a month away from relocating his home / office permanently
to the Salishan property, Gleneden, Oregon.

It's a really lovely 5 star health retreat now. A short stroll to the beach.

Harold is cranky and listening to all this gossip and opinions from people,
dobbing in other people for saying this and that. In their "opinion" "pov".

TMOASM is published and it's not long before HQ knows and is getting calls from
the field about it. What to say?

This is the first time what Bluth had to say in his letter to David Lane is
published, known about openly.

In June 1983 (corrected was 1980), a couple of months later, the new LTG 3

book is delivered. 16,000 copies ready for sale.

It's well known from the (1983) Oct 22 HI meeting, that there was a drama over

the contents of that book edited by Darwin Gross.
'too much information', it wasn't 'fitted out for Eckankar' properly,
and Patti needed "to edit it" asap.

The (original) books was pulped, about September 1983. [ end quote ]
-----------------------------------

I'd still like to see the original letter in full, to see the context for myself. David 'cherry picked' too much in his missive imho, and jumped to conclusions a lot in absence of confirming data/facts. Some of his 'facts' were out a few times too... more research fills in a few of those blanks now.

Far too often people "pull out quotes" to shore up their own bias and beliefs
about what ever their "point is". Not realising there's other info there about
all kinds of things that other people would find more interesting to them.

I can't stand "gate keepers" ... I'd like to know the "whole" of what Bluth
said in that letter to Lane. And make up my own mind who and what he was
talking about and what it "means to me.".

-- not going to happen -- (of course)

[Etznab]

There was more to this letter? Quoting ...

Date: June 19, 1980

My wife and I opened the first Eck class in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul [Twitchell] many times and was the main speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away. Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied. I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what he had done and his answer was "since the author the book said it better than I could I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it.

As far as Darwin {Gross} is concerned, my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master. I don't think that a Master would divorce his wife and seek many other female companions.

Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.

... end quote.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/%22Dr.$20Bluth$20$26$20Paul$20Twitchell%22|sort:relevance/alt.religion.eckankar/P_ieQTG4bew/YMs2qr_stiQJ

Regardless, I noticed that:

"[...] I confronted him with what he had done and his answer was 'since the author the book said it better than I could I copied it.' The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. [... .]"

To me, it reads like the first president of Eckankar - also a close friend who knew Paul Twitchell personally - admitted Paul Twitchell copied, and why. He didn't say an Eck Master said it better and he wrote down the words spoken by an Eck Master.

[Henosis Sage]

I believe so. It makes no sense as a 'whole' letter to me.
Hi Dave,
blah blah blah,
Dr Bluth

Lane never quoted anything "in full" in tmoasm etc. Only extracts.
Sometimes he muddled those up when transposing. only a cpl times.

the funniest one was where he was talking about name redactions,
and the next sentence which he didn't "quote" had Rebazar tarzs'
name in it.

Everyone makes mistakes. Without seeing the 'originals' in full
and the extracts in context, one cannot be sure what people
"claim something means" is reasonable or not. being able to check,
really helps, imho.

[Kinpa]

So what? Do you believe that it is only YOU that gets to walk "their own path"?? LOL....the thing that makes you angry is that it actually happened as I said it would.....one would think that you might start watching what you say to or about others, and yet you never change in the least....so you collect the bounty of those behaviors and get angry with me for having stated that they would happen here.....then you generally remark about how it HAS to have been black magic, or that I am a "devil", but by doing so you actually draw those things to yourself, and sean is no different....though I find it amusing that both of you have such a strong belief that there is no such thing as out of body consciousness or spiritual experience, but somehow despite that black magic IS real and exists? Yet another double standard made by people that seem to have no ability to explore the options or prove them to anyone.....also, I do not recall EVER having told either of you, or anyone else, that I was the same (or different) from other ECKists....You may not like what I have said to you, but Eckankar cannot and will not have anything to do with my having said those things. As always you may write them if you'd like, but it will amount to nothing, as have all of sean's legal threats....neither of you like not being able to walk all over anyone you disagree with here, and you have both gotten very used to being the only ones here posting, but those days are over so kiss them good bye! Remember, you can ALWAYS create an anti-Eckankar group to criticize Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp, but by doing that here YOU are the one who restrain freedom of speech and open and honest conversation, because you cannot abide the existence of anyone who disagrees with your conclusions....and the trying to call my words religious persecution is ridiculous, because, what religion is it exactly, that you claim I am persecuting you for???? My making such a claim is easily proven by your own words, but you both will have a MUCH harder time proving that I am doing that to either, or both, of you!

[Etznab]

"... and the trying to call my words religious persecution is ridiculous, because, what religion is it exactly, that you claim I am persecuting you for????"

Religion that includes the truth.

[Henosis Sage]

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 13:13:36 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 7:04:27 PM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 12:28:25 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 12:33:32 PM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

> > > > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:11:19 AM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:18:32 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:

> > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:45:27 PM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:11:10 AM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:52:31 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:50:52 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > actually a majority of new ECKists are completely aware of all of this, and even have David Lane's and Ford Johnson's books available to read along side of any number of Eckankar books, and one thing they do not have to add into the mix is an ebook version of TWT, at least not yet....regardless, i meet several people almost every week that have had experiences with the so called "fictional" ECK Masters, many of whom are not anywhere near being ECKists as they belong to other various religions, which is also not at all a problem..a great many of these have had these visitations by entities they had never heard of before, the same as are called ECK Masters.....it is a strange non-logic that while pointing out plagiarism on quotes that were reportedly given to PT by Rebazar Tarzs or other Masters, that the plagiarism itself in some way is assumed to be proof that the Masters were made up. There is no evidence to support that conclusion, not one thing. There are however, several other possibilities that appear to have never occurred to anyone, and this being the case, one has to wonder why persons who are so outspoken about having proven these things as facts, never even consider these other options, much less refuting them. That leaves some very large holes in the story purported to be the truth by so many former students, who all seem to agree on the same set of standards of what PT actually did or the why of the thing. What is most amusing is that these people are in an exact same place they claim any ECKist to be in, regardless of the fact that theirs happens to be the opposing point of view, it is still just the same. The mind sees what i WANTS to see and most interpret the things they find by those same standards, but this does not change the fact that they have also missed on other possibilities. And yet the list or people that meet with these spiritual entities that are called certain names by Eckankar does not at all change. People that have never even heard of Eckankar still meet with these Masters, but being that they had never been told about nor have ever read a book published by Eckankar, that circumvents the old assumption that people who have such experiences are guilty of mythical thinking, while at the same time showing that those who generally make this claim against people are guilty of it themselves from having assumed the comfortable (for themselves) option as opposed to looking into the entire matter. Then there is the fact that these points of view also claim that any/every spiritual or "inner" experience that anyone on earth has ever had, is a fiction created by the brain, which is fine, but those are usually called atheists or at the least agnostics. With all of the name calling that happens, why is this always avoided? What is everyone so scared of?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Paul Twitchell and Eckankar 'spin-off' teachings today
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Akatha http://akatha12.weebly.com/ (Sri Timothy Arnold)
> > > > > > > > > > Vardankar http://vardankar.com/ (Sri Allen Feldman)
> > > > > > > > > > Marmankar http://spiritualdialogues.com/ (Doug Marman)
> > > > > > > > > > Akshara Vidya http://aksharavidya.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=21
> > > > > > > > > > Master Path http://www.masterpath.org/ (Sri Gary Olsen)
> > > > > > > > > > ATOM http://www.atom.org/ (Sri Darwin Gross deceased)
> > > > > > > > > > SFS http://spiritualfreedomsatsang.org/ (Sri Michael Turner)
> > > > > > > > > > MSIA http://www.msia.org/ (Sri John R Hinkins deceased)
> > > > > > > > > > Dhunami http://www.dhunami.org/ (Sri Paul Marche)
> > > > > > > > > > The Way of Truth http://thewayoftruth.org/ (Sri Michael Owens)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And a number of these groups share the same masters. O.K.? However, they don't all draw / paint the exact same pictures or put the same words into the masters mouths.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kinpa. Don't you remember Eckists who followed the leader of Eckankar, had their own experiences, and Darwin Gross repeated those in court? This indicates that ultimately the reigning leader of Eckankar can legally negate experiences had with Eck Masters if they are not to his liking. Example: If someone has an experience with the masters who say that Harold has to go. See? It has happened with Darwin Gross and it happened with Graham Forsyth. No doubt there are many other examples of Harold, Eckankar and clergy TELLING other people what their experiences actually mean.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All of the posturing - not just by "Eckankar", but by many different spin-offs - is an indication that people are having experiences for sure. But also there is a hierarchy, and there are pseudo man-made hierarchies and self-appointed clergy parroting, mocking, chiming, shouting and defining what is what. Harold says the individual has to decide what works for them. Masters who are animated by words from other people's books does not work for everybody.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There is a "constant" here with religions. They all have some form of hierarchy and some form of human agency representing a position in the hierarchy which stands "above" all other people, all other members, according to their executive power.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Belief can be powerful. Even when people believe in false information and / or do not have the facts. Religions can be powerful too. They can take in many, many people and many, many dollars. If you wanted to control, or have influence over religions in general ... How could one do that? First one could take the teachings of other religions and splice, slice and dice them into the same bowl. One could stir for a long long time until they appear to blend and become one thing. One could make a cookie, or ginger-bread man out of the dough and call it the "Godman on Earth"! A being who represents God on Earth! Imagination can fashion many. many things that people are prone to believe.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let Harold (or Eckankar) explain why Rebazar Tarzs and other Eck Masters appear to plagiarize other people's writings, even switch identities at will. Either it is plagiarism and the Eck Master's names were created as fictions to conceal the identities and teachings of the actual authors, or the Eck Masters - as Harold said they were - are real. Either way, there is still a need to explain the similarity between what Eck Masters allegedly said and what other people had written in books years before Eckankar was even coined as a word.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I seriously doubt that anybody has located every single plagiarism and every single author, or source for Paul Twitchell and Eckankar's writings. So until the vast majority is found, compiled, illustrated and studied I believe one should refrain from making blanket statements about the Eck Masters and whether real, or not. Otherwise one would be simply guessing. It doesn't mean people can't guess correctly, but for those who are off the mark and who lead others astray I would call that a very bad karma.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > is there ANY logic being used here at all? anywhere? you, like everyone else in the world, know that Paul Twitchell wrote the books, so, if plagiarism took place, that was done by him alone....besides the fact that if i person SPEAKS the words of another's book out loud to another person, that is not plagiarism, nothing is quite that simple in a court of law, or have you never been in one to learn this fact? your opinion about blanket statements about ECK Masters is fine, opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one, so not a problem, however, you still do not get to pass judgment on others based on these things that TO YOU seem to make so much sense, the simple fact is that not everyone agrees with you, and that is a thing you will one day need to learn to deal with. about PT's plagiarisms, i've said it before, and i'll say it again, the majority simply do not care in the least, the people that you speak to regularly do, which is also fine, but you have never gone out into any group of people that you had previously had no contact with and asked them about it now have you? that does not create an accurate poll, throwing these ideas around amongst the same people time after time. Religion has existed in various forms for thousands of years, and sacred writings (to whichever religion) have always been used and or plagiarised by those reformers who eventually began a new religion, so in that context, plagiarism has always happened, and has never been considered a very big deal by anyone until the 70's at best. it is what it is, and it is not what it is not. Paul Twitchell did not invent plagiarism...what you say about belief is for the most part true, however i will not debate that point because i do not use belief, i do not particularly consider it a valuable thing, but that's just me. Everyone else can do things the way they choose, its no skin off of mine!
> > > > > > > >

> > > > It sounds a tad reactionary what you wrote, given the amount of times the word "you" appeared followed by your own opinionated statements.
> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > of course you do Etznab, my opinion is not one that you are comfortable with, i have no problem with that as i have no care for what anyone thinks, i am comfortable enough in my own skin and do not require acceptance or permission from anyone for anything....that "you" was put in there to point out what is obvious to me, in case you were unable to see it, that YOUR opinion is YOURS, that is fine, but no one else is required to agree with it, and if they do not, they are not "mythical thinkers" or any of the other wikipedia terms that have been applied to me but those with no degrees or education in psychology....i can also say that your deciding that my words seemed reactionary is a facet of just how much your ego is weighing in on your perceptions, but hey, they are your own so if that is the case, i consider that a personal situation that has nothing to do with me, so i will leave it at that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > We don't write the same. Ever since the beginning I have left a lot of room for many things and I continue to do so. Rather, I see it as reactionary rhetoric that pits people more against me as a person than against the discussion topics I choose. This is understandable because I am not so intimidated as others who have abandoned this group over the years, or who could not stomach the likes of what has haunted this group from the beginning.
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > see comments above....and to be utterly clear, i used no rhetoric at all, i stated my own perceptions, and addressed them not only at you personally, but also at the topic at hand, not really a huge big deal in my opinion...personally i find it impossible to be intimidated by anyone, so i personally have no desire to intimidate you, that wouldnt serve any of my interests, but as for confrontation, i love it, i have yet to run from one because i consider that an easy thing to do, again, not a huge big deal, just a normal daily thing to deal with in all areas of life
> > >
> > > > People don't particularly like that I question the existence of invisible beings and masters. And yet I also suspect that to some extent everybody does question. It is natural and rational to do so; not to mention a sane thing to question the existence of invisible beings and voices in the head, etc.
> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > i have no problem with that, because that is your own personal choice, my experiences are quite different from those, so while i can understand why you have those doubts, that still does not amount to a whole lot, regardless of the way you want to go with it, it will always be your own job to overcome those doubts, or prove them reality, and the same goes for every individual....personally, i can see being and things that others cannot, i can also leave my body consciously at any time...if that sounds crazy to you and/or Sean, that is fine, i can live with that, but i also can prove the reality of it to myself along with an entire host of 3rd parties that have the experiences...PT's claims are just not THAT unreasonable, if you or anyone finds them to be, that is fine, but you still have to admit that you are limiting yourself, and if that to you is "sane" (another merely mental term, why this limit on things?) then that is where you are and those are the limits you have placed upon yourself, it is not PT's or HK's fault in any way
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > A little more science and a little less religion perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > Btw, there is a reason for the word "living" in the title Living Master. That is a distinction making it different from fictional and imaginary master.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > religion is mental, and man made, i have no problem with using the word fictional concerning that...but you must also understand that science has very little to do with facts, everything is a THEORY, not proven, just suspicions...if you want to apply those same PHYSICAL standards to spirituality, then i wont stop you, but you will still never be able to use those things as proofs that the experiences of others are all in the head, or any other mental condition.....did you ever put this much effort and investigation into trying to leave your body? i am curious because many times you seem to indicate that such a thing is not possible......the distinction you make about the word "living" is your own, but that is another thing you simply cannot prove one way or the other, so it cannot be used as a debate tool, if someone wants to follow that assumption, they can, if not, they dont have to! easy as pie! to EACH,THEIR own!
> >
> > "... but you must also understand that science has very little to do with facts, everything is a THEORY, not proven, just suspicions ... ."
> >
> > I wasn't referring to science fiction.
> >
> > Science has very little to do with facts?
> >
> > Everything is theory?
> >
> > I don't believe you.
>
> science is 98% theory silly boy, have you not ever noticed how it continues to change? scientists do very little work with facts, they simply do not have facts to use, they come up with theories, then try to prove or disprove those, however, that is a very slow job, and since they cannot actually go themselves into the heart of the sun, or to other galaxies, they are, always have been, and continue to be, theories, not facts, if you do not know this then your views are far more prejudiced than i had realized, and your ability to perceive much less than i had thought previously...in the end i care not for whatever you believe, i do not use belief, i find it silly, so you go ahead and enjoy believing, ill go forward having actual experiences instead ;) almost bidet time again, but you wont be the first on this night, which proves there was no suggestion LOL around 8:20 pm your time, enjoy
----

from Dec 2014 RE:

"science is 98% theory silly boy, have you not ever noticed how it continues
to change? scientists do very little work with facts, they simply do not have
facts to use, they come up with theories, then try to prove or disprove those,
however, that is a very slow job, and since they cannot actually go themselves
into the heart of the sun, or to other galaxies, they are, always have been,
and continue to be, theories, not facts,"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/fETFUFKmLQ4J

That's just garbage talk. A denial of the value of, disinformation of the
scientific method, and pure fantasies about "facts" and their role within
science. "Theoretical science" is but one kind of science. eg the Princeton
Center for Theoretical Science http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/

Then there is the known different recipes to produce various kinds of Concrete!
That too is 'science' using scientific facts. Oh, and planes fly, not pigs. :)


anyway, the comments ended with this missive:

"...in the end i care not for whatever you believe, i do not use belief,
i find it silly, so you go ahead and enjoy believing, ill go forward having
actual experiences instead ;) almost bidet time again, but you wont be the
first on this night, which proves there was no suggestion LOL around 8:20 pm
your time, enjoy"

Isn't he clever? he can see that someone is gonna poo their pants but
someone else will beat them to it ... to the 'bidet'.

Isn't that nice? And gosh, "which proves there was...", some actual PROOF too!
Smokin'............

[Henosis Sage]

------

Same bs mo, unable to read - continually 'imagines' things are written that
were not:
"...because you cannot abide the existence of anyone who disagrees with

your conclusions....and the trying to call my words religious persecution
is ridiculous, because, what religion is it exactly, that you claim I am persecuting you for????"

Etznab actually said:

"Maybe he is persecuting?
persecution (n.)
mid-14c., "oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion," from Old French
persecucion "persecution, damage, affliction, suffering" (12c.) and directly
from Latin persecutionem (nominative persecutio), noun of action from past
participle stem of persequi "follow, pursue, hunt down; proceed against,
prosecute, start a legal action," from per- "through" (see per) + sequi
"follow" (see sequel).
Psychological persecution complex is recorded from 1961; earlier persecution
mania (1892).
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.religion.eckankar/mKPJPAMq0rs/ooioRfaV-IUJ "

From July 19th: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/mKPJPAMq0rs/MphJkyJZRjYJ

Nope I cannot see the word RELIGION there anywhere. It's no where, that's why!

-----------

Meanwhile the rant continued with:

"....so you collect the bounty of those behaviors and get angry with me for
having stated that they would happen here.....then you generally remark about
how it HAS to have been black magic, or that I am a "devil", but by doing so
you actually draw those things to yourself, and sean is no different.

...though I find it amusing that both of you have such a strong belief that
there is no such thing as out of body consciousness or spiritual experience,
but somehow despite that black magic IS real and exists? Yet another double
standard made by people that seem to have no ability to explore the options or
prove them to anyone.

....also, I do not recall EVER having told either of you, or anyone else, that
I was the same (or different) from other ECKists....You may not like what I
have said to you, but Eckankar cannot and will not have anything to do with my
having said those things.

As always you may write them if you'd like, but it will amount to nothing, as
have all of sean's legal threats....neither of you like not being able to walk
all over anyone you disagree with here, and you have both gotten very used to
being the only ones here posting, but those days are over so kiss them good
bye!

Remember, you can ALWAYS create an anti-Eckankar group to criticize Paul
Twitchell and Harold Klemp, but by doing that here YOU are the one who
restrain freedom of speech and open and honest conversation, because you
cannot abide the existence of anyone who disagrees with your conclusions...."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/O2ULw-QiNA8J

Aha, yeah, righto, yup, whatever, how nice, sure, in his dreams and multiple
disconnects from reality perhaps, because that's the only SPACE such things
have been happening!

Endless false assumptions, STRAWMEN are everywhere, rationalisations based on
putting words (and beliefs) into other peoples mouths. http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log53.htm

" 'Contrariwise', continued Tweedledee, 'If it was so, it might be; and if
it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' "

-- Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass, Ch. IV.

[Etznab]

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:40:56 PM UTC-5, Henosis Sage wrote:
> RE:

> "LOL....the thing that makes you angry is that it actually happened as I said it would....."

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/yVrIn5cdwIUJ
>
> What is "IT" that he said 'it actually happened as I said it would'?
>
> There is several,

>
> "you will have a surprise sometime today Sean! enjoy that!"

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/rwcdGWiD-mUJ
> and

> "magik? no, that stuff is for amateurs lol, i have no time for such regardless of the spelling. it must have been the wind after all! LOL"

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/RAGe6qbkZkIJ
> and

> "now on an off-topic note, did you enjoy the "bidet"?"

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/tJ8z5u0eX20J
> and

> "...in the end i care not for whatever you believe, i do not use belief, i find it silly, so you go ahead and enjoy believing, ill go forward having actual experiences instead ;) almost bidet time again, but you wont be the first on this night, which proves there was no suggestion LOL around 8:20 pm your time, enjoy "

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/fETFUFKmLQ4J
> and
> "absolutely NO chance of any sort of a reaction to a suggestion, please do note, i said nothing until it was already happening...you were eating at the time and had to run...didnt quite make it however did you...then just when you thought it was over...another surprise ;) how is belief working for you now? you can deny it all you want, but you still made a huge mess in your pants, but you werent the only one...someone else mopped up the mess on the floor with their pajama pants, only to get into the shower and lather up to have it happen all over again.....i couldnt make this stuff up man! LOL enjoy~!!! "
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/yVrIn5cdwIUJ

>
> to whit the Poo Man says:
> "LOL....the thing that makes you angry is that it actually happened as I said it would....."
>

> That's funny, because nothing happened. NOTHING, except in Psychosisland maybe.
> No surprises. No Bidets. None needed. Nothing occurred at 8:20 for Etznab.
>
> Then the Poo Man also claims regarding 'beliefs':

> "ill go forward having actual experiences instead ;)"
>

> Aha, yeah, righto, yup, whatever, how nice, sure, in his dreams and multiple
> disconnects from reality perhaps, because that's the only SPACE such things
> have been happening!
>

> ON Sunday, 21 December 2014 I wrote:
>
> "Kinpa, you're an idiot!"
>

> It was right then. It is right now.
> (shrug)
>
> -

>
> "Stop flattering yourself, you are not, and have never been a "truth Master".....you are a drunken piece of shit that lies around drunk all day pretending to be a tough guy on a COMPUTER! And why are you all taped up? What is that all about?"

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/j_VXc5J8DpM/MH6k6c15aD8J
>
> Then on 30th April 2015 I said:
> "KINPA ........... YOU ARE STILL AN IDIOT 4 MONTHS LATER - AND ALWAYS WILL BE !!!"
>
> It was right then, and it is right now.
> (shrug)
>
> If Kinpa believes or insists that he has seen people shitting their pants, using bidets, going to walmart, talsk with people called patricia who calls other people 'shitter nutter', and of people taped up, and rapists, and threats of rapes, of criminals under every rock, of liars and fools far less "experienced" than he because he can do remote viewing at will, and hangs out with shaman's who work with eck masters on the inner, and if he keeps insisting he see what's going on in other people's lives, what they eat when they have dinner parties, when they drink, what their friends do at this party, how drunk they all get and vomit and shit everywhere so drunk are they, and that they use drugs, and goodness knows whatever else this idiot has been saying such as giving warnings about his "shamans" etc etc etc since Sept 2014 then surely he hath lost all connection with reality and is off with the faeries big time.
>
> And has been long before Sept 2014.
>
> Meaning, it's got nuffin' to do with me at all.
>
> (shrug)

"[...] If Kinpa believes or insists that he has seen people shitting their pants, using bidets, going to walmart, talsk with people called patricia who calls other people 'shitter nutter', and of people taped up, and rapists, and threats of rapes, of criminals under every rock, of liars and fools far less "experienced" than he because he can do remote viewing at will, and hangs out with shaman's who work with eck masters on the inner, and if he keeps insisting he see what's going on in other people's lives, what they eat when they have dinner parties, when they drink, what their friends do at this party, how drunk they all get and vomit and shit everywhere so drunk are they, and that they use drugs, and goodness knows whatever else this idiot has been saying such as giving warnings about his "shamans" etc etc etc since Sept 2014 then surely he hath lost all connection with reality and is off with the faeries big time. [... .]"

What would a psychologist say about Kinpa's writings? I wonder.

[Etznab]

Saw something interesting in here (in this quote):

A delusion is, by definition, a psychotic symptom: a fixed, false, irrational conviction not comporting with objective reality but clung to vehemently nonetheless. Shared Psychotic Disorder refers to the onset of such a delusional state of mind in someone as a consequence of close relationship with another person already suffering from psychosis. Yes, in this sense, psychosis can be communicable. This relatively rare mental disorder illustrates two vital truths: Psychosis--contrary to the conventional mainstream view--is most often not merely the manifestation of biochemical aberration or a "broken brain," but a fundamentally psychological phenomenon. And, as such, it demonstrates the dangerous degree to which the human mind is capable of massive self-deception. It proves the awesome power of psychology.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200811/essential-secrets-psychotherapy-truth-lies-and-self-deception

The most interesting part I saw was: "Yes, in this sense, psychosis can be communicable."

[Henosis Sage]

--

"None of us are beyond deceiving ourselves. Such self-deception, which in its
most extreme and pathological forms we deem delusional, is much more pervasive
than most imagine.

Consider the ordinary example of some heated conflict with a spouse, lover,
relative or close friend. How is it that after the fact, each participant can
have a completely contradictory version of what happened? Objectively speaking,
first A happened, then B occurred, then C was said, D followed, etc. But what
if the objective facts or our own behavior don't comport well with how we see
ourselves?

We distort the facts to support our particular point of view and to sustain
our beliefs about the kind of person we are or want to be. When the objective
facts threaten the ego and its integrity, we experience what social
psychologists call "confirmation bias," a kind of cognitive dissonance known
more recently as "Morton's Demon."

We dismiss certain facts incompatible with our myth of ourselves in favor of
other less threatening and more corroborative ones. We twist the truth. And
we become convinced of the veracity of this twisted truth. And we do all this
unconsciously. We don't even know we're doing it. This goes beyond mere
"cognitive distortion," resulting in a radical rewriting of history and
reality for the purpose of preserving our precious self-image or persona.

In its most extreme form, such self-deception can lead to certain delusional
beliefs symptomatic of psychosis. This illustrates clearly the powerful
unconscious cognitive component of psychotic disorders of various kinds."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200811/essential-secrets-psychotherapy-truth-lies-and-self-deception


You can't handle the truth!

Festinger coined the term 'cognitive dissonance' to describe the uncomfortable
tension we feel when we experience conflicting thoughts or beliefs
(cognitions), or engage in behavior that is apparently opposed to our stated
beliefs. What is particularly interesting is the lengths to which people will
go to reduce the inner tension without accepting that they might, in fact, be
wrong. They will accept almost any form of relief, other than admitting being
at fault, or mistaken.

If a person believes, for example, that they are not a bigot, but then
discriminates against someone on the basis of "opinion/belief", this faces
them with the discomfort of acknowledging that they are a Bigot after all.

In an attempt to escape this discomfort, they will seek to rationalize
(explain away) their behavior on some other grounds, which may be spurious,
but which allow them to hold on to their otherwise discredited belief.

Festinger quickly realized that our intolerance for 'cognitive dissonance'
could explain many mysteries of human behavior.
http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/stop-lying.html


[One point of contention for 'cognitive dissonance' arising would be someone
who claims they do not operate on "belief" ... that they are above such
mundane human foibles of the 'common man'. ]

Creationists and cognitive dissonance

Creationists have particular problems with scientific concepts that conflict
with a 6000 year old earth and a global flood occuring 4300 years ago. This
causes them to propose silly stuff like baramins, a changing speed of light,
problems with radiometric dating and the like.

Cumulative cognitive dissonance

Most people will -- eventually -- change their beliefs on a subject after enough
contradictory evidence emerges, because sometimes it is so solid and undeniable
that it is easier to give up a complex worldview than having to constantly
generate excuses why this evidence is false.

Other individuals, especially when they have support networks of others
reinforcing a delusion or worldview, will go to such great lengths to
rationalize away dissenting ideas that after a certain point, an admission of
error would cause the collapse of an entire web of mutually-supporting beliefs.

This would leave the brain with no ability to do its work, as everything it
thought it knew would now be useless, resulting in agony/extreme fear of death
and the activation of emergency self-protection mechanisms. Those mechanisms
cause the individual to either go into an introverted reaction, with all
-encompassing ignorance and cutting off any contact to those conflicting parts
of the real world, or an extroverted reaction of trying to attack and destroy
the sources of the conflicting information for heresy (typical for Abrahamic
religions).

By comparison, a human being who would actually go through such an event
without that protection would end up in a state of complete inability to accept
himself/herself and to choose the "right" actions for even the simplest
situations, making it impossible for him/her to continue living. So the former
protective reactions are still the better (because it means survival) of three
really bad choices.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

And that is where Quoc Quy Hoang found himself, when some self-delusions were
suddenly stripped away.

Protection Failure from the MAHANTA in ECKANKAR
(by Quoc Quy Hoang on 3/1/2005, Internet Search Code: QQH891955-1)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/CRCwR2NcAyA/Jql7z2tiVwIJ

"Acceptable Quoc" in 1997
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/EzdqX--SU5E/UmPGhcQCu6MJ

And this is the type of outcome that makes being in Eckankar too long a time
exponentially dangerous for some people. Yes, Psychosis can be communicable!

When Quoc heard Harold Klemp saying and writing that Quoc enjoyed the
protection of the Mahanta, Quoc believed him.

Or does this mean that 6th Initiate Quoc failed the "inner tests" on the
"secret teachings" and was therefore expendable?

Is this why Klemp never told the truth back in 1980s about either Gross or
Twitchell lest people start jumping off the tops of buildings or off bridges
in rivers after having their delusions stripped away instantly by hearing
the whole truth?

Cognitive Dissonance is a Peach!

[Henosis Sage]

On Friday, 31 July 2015 22:25:07 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:

this too ..

But what of Casey's parents, especially her mother, Cindy Anthony? Both seem
convinced that Casey did not harm their granddaughter and is telling
authorities the truth. Is this a conscious show of support and solidarity for
their daughter, an effort to protect her from abandonment and prosecution?

Are they lying? Do they speak of Casey's innocence outwardly but inwardly
believe in her guilt? Or are they lying to themselves? Denial is a potent form
of self-deception, an unconscious psychological defense mechanism designed to
ward off unacceptable or inconvenient truths. Could Casey Anthony's parents be,
perhaps like her, so deeply in denial that they have introjected their
daughter's delusional belief about what happened, becoming enmeshed in a folie
a trois?

While such cases are extreme, this sort of symbiotic dynamic is present in most
relationships to some extent, with partners regularly entering into and
supporting the subjective reality of the other. Even when that necessitates
deceiving themselves to do it. Evidence of this can be commonly seen in co
-dependent relationships in which the severity of abusive behavior or substance
abuse or mental illness in one person is minimized by the other.

This insidious self-deception occurs not only in couples, but in families,
friendships, groups, religious cults, political parties and entire countries.

Cognitive dissonance leads us to disregard or negate all that could contradict
our cherished self-image or insult our personal or collective narcissism.

So the truth we see is highly selective, serving to reinforce primarily our
experience of ourselves as good, kind, honest, religious, spiritual, loving,
etc.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200811/essential-secrets-psychotherapy-truth-lies-and-self-deception

(How to tell? By their fruits though shalt know them ... it's a classic truism!)

[Henosis Sage]

On Friday, 31 July 2015 22:25:07 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:

---

Resolving dissonance

The concept of cognitive dissonance was developed and tested by observing some
cults and observing how they reacted when their beliefs (in the end of the
world) were shattered (by the world simply not ending), first and most famously
in Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schacter's When Prophecy Fails.

As the sensation of dissonance is very unpleasant, most people tend to resolve
it by converting their knowledge, beliefs, behaviours and perceptions so that
they are consistent between each other.

Sounds logical, indeed, but there is a catch: the resolution is usually through
the path of least psychological resistance. For example, when the cults'
prophecies were proved to be wrong, the followers' faith didn't diminish; to
the contrary, it strengthened, because it is much easier to simply disavow
pieces of evidence as "false," put up an excuse and keep on believing, than to
change a belief that has grown to be an individual's entire soul, fiber and
character.

Even their memories are distorted; one such person claimed that the date of the
world's end had never been given with certainty, and evinced genuine surprise
when his own words were played back saying that the world would absolutely
totally for sure end on that date.

A prominent political example of resolving dissonance in this way can be found
in the various smear attempts made against US President Barack Obama throughout
2008 and 2009. WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah - a key player in the Birther
movement - has a firm belief that Obama is not American, and evidence to the
contrary is dismissed as insufficient or fraudulent. Evidence for such beliefs,
on the other hand, is usually blindly accepted by way of confirmation bias.

Cognitive dissonance is a large part of why hazing builds loyalty - if you go
through a rough initiation to get into a fraternity, you'll go to great lengths
to convince yourself that the organization is awesome enough to have been worth
it. Similarly, end of the world cultists often give away everything they own
shortly before the appointed date, and will go to great lengths to avoid
thinking that it was for nothing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"For example, when the cults' prophecies (history, claims) were proved to be
wrong, the followers' faith didn't diminish; to the contrary, it strengthened,
because it is much easier to simply disavow pieces of evidence as "false," put
up an excuse and keep on believing, than to change a belief that has grown to
be an individual's entire soul, fiber and character."

"Even their memories are distorted;" which when their words are repeated back
to them verbatim, they claim you've changed the text! They never said "that".

"...and evidence to the contrary is dismissed as insufficient or fraudulent." aka ... the "you can't prove it!" or "you're a proven liar" excuses are
repeated endlessly.

This is the psychology of delusions, distortions, mystical thinking, cognitive
dissonance and denial in action.

This is why when I showed Marman he was wrong about a few things, he didn't
know what to do about it. He had trashed Kirpal's reputation based on several
falsehoods he had presented to the world, and he had no clue what if anything
he should do about it. Correcting the record publicly never occurred to him.

He demanded/asserted that Lane and others should make such corrections, but
not himself, despite 'claiming' that was his own values and ethics.

When push came to shove, Marman was sadly lacking in ethics and values.

This is why no one will ever hear a word from Marman that the 0.7% to 2.0%
claims of minimal plagiarism by Twitchell are total bullshit and that 90%
copied from other books is closer to the mark.

(shrug)

Proof positive of the saying "You can lead a horse to water ..."

You can't argue successfully with drunks or fundamentalists. :-)

[Etznab]

Begin quote: [...] Just after the Far Country was published, Paul gave me a copy the Path of the Masters to read. We had a follow up discussion shortly after that and he want to know what my comment was. I recall stating that I had found sections of it that were the same as what I had read in the Path of the Masters. His remark was essentially the same one that Dr. Bluth quotes in the attached excerpt. [... .] End quote

[Based on: GAKKO, The Skeptic's Journal of Eckankar History, Episode Four

http://tinyurl.com/q5v2vmc

Referring link

https://sites.google.com/site/therunnebohmdigitalcollection/

The above suggests to me the following:

Not only did Bluth relate that Paul Twitchell copied from his "library", but there was evidently another person aware of this. Another person that Paul had asked for comment.

That Paul Twitchell himself would present a person with two different books and then ask for comment is, imho, on track with similar actions here at a.r.e. And the answers seem to depend on who you ask.

[Etznab]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:21:00 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:

Allegedly, Bluth wrote: "... The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. ... ."

In my opinion that is incorrect, because in some cases he [Paul Twitchell] did credit Eck Masters. Twitchell especially credited Rebazar Tarzs and this is something that Dr. Louis Bluth, former president of Eckankar, would surely have known.

So, generally speaking, I would agree that Paul did not reference all of his sources. However, he did apparently give credit to Eck masters.

[Etznab]

Some more trivia on topic:

1.)

Begin quote:

"[...] Anyway, back to the story: Darwin was very supportive of my self-assigned task and would ask me about it from time to time. One day I told him that I'd discovered a tape like no others in the box. It was a personal recording by Paul, apparently done in his home. It sounded like Paul was experimenting again. This time he was trying to create an audio version of something like Dialogues With The Master.

"The tape started with Paul's voice describing a visit by Rebazar Tarzs. Then we
hear Paul's voice lower to into a deep, gravely sound, saying something like,
"Well, Paul, are you ready?" Paul was mimicing the voice of Rebazar Tarzs! The
tape went on to give a discourse from Rebazar on a spiritual topic. This was so
long ago I can't remember much more than that, but the tape was amazing to me,
and I wish I could hear it again to see what I might think of it today. [... .]" End quote

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/Darwin$20tape$20voice$20of$20Rebazar$20Tarzs|sort:relevance/alt.religion.eckankar/z1ks3dcjb4s/LWKpUi3Vv0MJ

2.)

From an old TS post where Doug was asked about Eck Masters (see links for context):

"[....] 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on them as if the Eck Master were saying them? Yes. [... .]"

http://tinyurl.com/3oz2sqy
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx?st=268&page=168#m264 http://thetruth-seeker.com/vanillaforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=264&page=1#Item_0

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/%22Did$20Paul$20Twitchell%22$20mouth$20of$20eck$20master$20were$20saying$20it/alt.religion.eckankar/N6MRFN5osSo/XKOTjwEGSS0J

[Etznab]

For reference link to Doug's last quote (mentioned on this thread) the a.r.e. thread with information is called "A post I sent to Ford's site yesterday".

It's in the first post by Doug on the following thread.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.religion.eckankar/VD9wNQ6834U[1-25]

[Etznab]

3.)

"No, I [Kinpa] am not in denial, everyone knows for a fact that Paul Twitchell plagiarised, which means that HE put the plagiarised words into Rebazar Tarzs mouth... [... .]"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/%22Why$20The$20Key$20to$20Eckankar$3F%22/alt.religion.eckankar/uIhQ3M-dM7U/WKumf7aY13IJ

[Henosis Sage]

HI,

in that gakko article, it reminded of this word "excerpted" :

"Excerpted from a letter by Dr. Louis Bluth, former President of Eckankar,..."

I'd prefer to see that letter in full. I asked Lane if i could provide it, but
he never replied. Which was the case for every single "request" I made to see
some of his "original info" in full, to dbl check all the facts dates etc were
right... and what the context was, and what else may have been said on
different subjects.

My point is simply that Lane, like Marman, Patti and Klemp/eckankar act like
self-appointed "gatekeepers" to actual true documented "facts".

The biggest hold out being Klemp over Paul Twitchell's personal archive purchased from Gail in 1982 for $500,000 using donated funds of Eckankar
Chelas.


-----
RE: GAKKO, The Skeptic's Journal of Eckankar History, Episode Four

I can recall some of that but not all of it. This wasn't in TMOASM was it?

Who was this person? Is it Anya Foos-Graber?

They mention being at the las vegas business meeting with Chet paul et al.
She was in the sept business meeting at Ohio where he died.
She also travelled with him to that seminar with no Patti or Gail with him.
(that is a reasonable conclusion based on various sources)

When ever this was provided to David Lane, it was after 1980 when Bluth had
written to lane, as the person references that. I am not sure it's Anya, only
that she is one possibility. It isn't Bluth, Tuttle, Patti, Gail, Marman,
Marge, or Darwin, or BB.

People at the Sept 1971 business meeting included Paul, Anya Foos Graber, a
guy called Tom, and Fred (Graber), and Yves. Might be Dianna Stanley, or
Helen Baird even? Whoever, a clue would be in this comment: "Still have the
book and it was what eventually lead me to pursue the teachings of Radha Soami." Tom could be "Thomas Flamma"?

????? Maybe how Lane came into contact with this person? So who knows anyone
who joined RS post eckanakr, after being one of the 'inner circle' pre-1971
with direct contact with Twitchell?

I can understand a "journalist" type keeping their sources confidential. I
think Lane left a lot unsaid in his TMOASM book in 1983 and later versions too.
He mentions many senior eckists contacting him post the SCP and his book in
published 1983... yet there is never any direct quote or naming of them and
what they had to say or knew.

I still believe there is a very close connection between Darwin's LTG 3 book
printed in June 1983, Twitchell's archive, and Darwin's later downfall,
including Gail and Patti's and other 8th's involvement in that, pushing Klemp
to act to fire Darwin Gross. Then the redacting of that LTG3 book in 1990, the
removal of TFC and other books and lot's of editing of Twitchell's discourses
and books.

Only for Gail and Patti to later turn away from Klemp as well.

The other interesting thing in that article was the mention of "mahanta" being
an issue between Paul, Bluth and others (some on the board I suppose).

OK, so that major change happened in late 1968 into early 1969.
In January 1969 Eckankar also switched to a non-profit status with a Board of trustees. (not as a full on religious org, just non-profit corp in CA/NV i think)

It replaced Twitchell's original Eckankar Inc. corporation.

That change is what Patti says Paul disagreed with and that they would be
"sorry" .... and marge says was done for Eckankar's "legal protection"
from lawsuits from chelas ending up in mental health institutions.

In the Sept 1971 business meeting, Paul speaks of the "board" as if it is a completely different enterprise .. and nothing to do with their "business meeting"
which included discussions of books being published, printed and written,
and training and advertising.

I think this whole period of late 1968 with Steiger's involvment, the switch
to the eck masters and mahanta terms, the change to a non-profit, the making of
a Eckankar Board, weird / unknown stuff between Gail and Paul, Anya Foos,
Dr & Mrs. Bluth and Chet Tuttle, Twitchell's so called "poisoning" in spain,
the whole disorganized office situation, the mythical stories Twitchell kept
putting out in the press and in books like "new messiah", and him being 'banned'
from most publications and newspapers by the 1970s, avoiding the press, and
having to submit articles and promos under false names, and in "letters to the
editor" and via "press releases" eg about no quake in CA and Aliens UFOs not a
problem.

Thomas Flamma was interesting chap .. here is an article by him:
1973-09-24 Thomas Flamma Soul Traveler Path to Awareness - Bucks County PA (Article)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPc1BXekF0MVFKdXM/view?usp=sharing

[Etznab]

Reading it again, I think enough information was in there to probably identify who the person was. They left around the same time that Chet was fired (which was?) and also helped to tour Darwin around the office. This information, along with other things could help to narrow the possibilities.

I don't think it could be Helen, since I don't recall her leaving. D.S. might be a possibility, given the number of times the person said things like "if my memory is correct", etc. I remember she used to write things like that.

More research could be helpful. Also, it is possible the person in question may have asked for confidentiality; and in that case David would have no choice but to comply.

One could probably find information on the Net for when Chet was fired and when D.S. left. If the dates don't match then this would eliminate another possible person.

[Etznab]

What about the guy who wrote this stuff? And who supposedly knew Paul real well?
DavidP?


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/chet$20tuttle$20patti$20simpson/alt.religion.eckankar/lnkCS7XQpeo/9kUxf8CCepAJ

Btw, this quote was interesting. It alleged that Paul's will named Bluth (Of course, somebody could have written that in after the fact. I don't know.):

"Big trouble went on in the Eckankar office esp after Darwin was chosen as his
successor. Chet Tuttle was later fired by Gail from Eckankar when he confronted her with Paul's will and other documents stating he had picked Louis
Blooth to be the next Eck master. This caused a big riff in the Eck community
and many dropped out of the path. Later, Gail and Darwin married, that kind of finished it off for all the rest of the 'old timers' that were involved with anyting to do with the office."

[Etznab]

> 1973-...

It could have been a number of people. But this one (called "A") seems to be another possibility.

"A. bailed out during the DG administration -- being that DG was giving her unmitigated hell about HER non-authoritarian stance vis.a.vis the teachings. And just for the record, her thanatological work predates by many years her involvement with Paul. See 'Skycleaver' for details."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/chet$20tuttle$20patti$20simpson/alt.religion.eckankar/WjZ_9fiULVw/gshUnVmtG8wJ

I found a couple other interesting quotes in that old post.

1.)

Also, is this statement in accordance with the teachings of eckankar?
Chapter Eight of "The precepts of eckankar" teaches:

"It is a fixed spiritual law that only a physically embodied man can
act as the Sat Guru for those who are still in their physical bodies."

My comments: This is why I think it important to learn if R.T was / is real.

2.)

It was Tom Flamma who saved some truths about Twitchell from being
lost, since he quotes Twicthell's "Paradox of the lie" which expresses
his view that speaking a lie isn't bad when people want to be fed
lies. See "Paradoxes" in "Metaphysics - A Bridge to Eckankar".
Obviously, neither Twitchell nor Flamma cared whether they spoke truth
- they enjoyed the "creativity" of producing their own myths.

My comments: I've seen that book by Flamma. It appeared to me that Tom told some real whoppers! It would be interesting, I think, to consider this idea of serving "lies" to people who "want to be fed" and whether this is part of the success behind organized religion and New Age groups.

[Henosis Sage]

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 02:51:58 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:

>
> What about the guy who wrote this stuff? And who supposedly knew Paul real well?
> DavidP?
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/chet$20tuttle$20patti$20simpson/alt.religion.eckankar/lnkCS7XQpeo/9kUxf8CCepAJ
>
> Btw, this quote was interesting. It alleged that Paul's will named Bluth (Of course, somebody could have written that in after the fact. I don't know.):
>
> "Big trouble went on in the Eckankar office esp after Darwin was chosen as his
> successor. Chet Tuttle was later fired by Gail from Eckankar when he confronted her with Paul's will and other documents stating he had picked Louis
> Blooth to be the next Eck master. This caused a big riff in the Eck community
> and many dropped out of the path. Later, Gail and Darwin married, that kind of finished it off for all the rest of the 'old timers' that were involved with anyting to do with the office."

I don't think that report by Lane "sounds" like DavidP.
I don't think he ever worked in the "office" either.

it's interesting though how Doug Marman "cherry picks" from DavidP's writings,
puts them in his own TWT book ... but then declares him as being "unreliable"
making stuff up, and having some "fun".

Meanwhile Marman says "stieger had tapes" of interviews with Paul for the
IMSIAF book, then he says Brad "destroyed" those tapes, and then later again
states that Steiger NEVER had a face to face interview with paul for that book
nor had made any tapes at any time .....

Marman's "commentaries" that repeatedly RE-Writes History - when he RE-States
his previous "facts" in reverse, are about as "reliable" as Kinpa's "remote
viewing skills" ... a Fail!

IMHO, nothing Marman has ever said, even about his own direct personal experiences he claims to "known about" in the 70s and 80s are "reliable"
(absent other confirmatory evidence).

[Henosis Sage]

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 03:20:22 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:

"See "Paradoxes" in "Metaphysics - A Bridge to Eckankar".
Obviously, neither Twitchell nor Flamma cared whether they spoke truth
- they enjoyed the "creativity" of producing their own myths. "


My comments: I've seen that book by Flamma. It appeared to me that Tom told some real whoppers! It would be interesting, I think, to consider this idea of serving "lies" to people who "want to be fed" and whether this is part of the success behind organized religion and New Age groups.

I've seen that book by Flamma. ... really? Where?

[Etznab]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 at 8:23:14 AM UTC-6, Etznab wrote:
> On Friday, August 31, 2007 11:18:13 PM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 9:14 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Following are three sets of quotes. The second set shows
> > > so many words by "Rebazar Tarzs". The third set shows so
> > > many words by Paul Twitchell. The first set - that preceeds
> > > them both by about 30 years - appears to be "history handed
> > > down" from one person to another, but history nevertheless.
> > >
> > > *********
> > >
> > > "The Master is the only man manifesting in history in whom
> > > individualism and universalism are combined in their full ex-
> > > pression, in spite of the assertion of some philosophers that
> > > such a combination is impossible. That is, the Master stands
> > > alone, is a law unto himself, does what he pleases, has what
> > > he wants, comes and goes absolutely at his own will, and
> > > asks no favors of no man. Neither can any man hinder him in
> > > the execution of his will. He is the only man who has no need
> > > to ask favors of others. He has all things at his own command.
> > > If he suffers hardships or inconveniences, that is because he chooses
> > > to do so for some purpose. He is the supreme giver,
> > > not a receiver; that is, he always pays for what he gets. He is
> > > slave to no one, is no time server, is bound by no rule or
> > > custom outside of himself and is a citizen of the whole world.
> > > [....]
> > >
> > > "There is but one to whom the Master bows in humble submission -
> > > the Supreme Lord, Sat Purush. His sovereign
> > > will is the only law the Master recognizes, that and the
> > > universal law of all laws - love [word "love" in italics]. [....]"
> > >
> > > - The Path of the Masters, by "Julian Johnson", copy-
> > > right 1939, 16th Edition 1997, pp. 180-181
> > >
> > > *********
> > >
> > > "The ECK traveler is the only man ever manifested in all
> > > history in whom individualism and universalism are combined
> > > in their full expression. That is, the spiritual traveler stands
> > > alone, is a law unto himself, does what he pleases, has what
> > > he wants, comes and goes absolutely at his own will, and
> > > asks favors of no man. Neither can any man hinder him in
> > > the execution of his will. He is the only man who has no need
> > > to ask favors of others; he has all things at his own command.
> > > If he suffers hardships, or inconveniences, that is bacause he chooses
> > > to do so for some purpose. He always pays for what
> > > he gets. He is not a slave to anyone, is no time server, is not bound
> > > by any rule or custom outside of himself, and is a
> > > citizen of the whole world.
> > >
> > > "There is but one to whom the spiritual traveler bows in
> > > humble submission - the Supreme SUGMAD - Lord of All
> > > things in the highest height of the spiritual worlds. ITS sov-
> > > ereign law is the only law the spiritual traveler recognizes,
> > > and the universal law of all laws - Wisdon, Power and
> > > Freedom!"
> > >
> > > - The Far Country, Copyright 1970, by Paul Twitchell
> > > 2rd Printing 1972, pp. 120-121 ("Rebazar Tarzs speak-
> > > ing" to Paul Twitchell)
> > >
> > > Questions: Did Paul Twitchell use so many words from
> > > the previous book, but "make believe" that he got it from
> > > Rebazar Tarzs? What does this say about the history of
> > > Rebazar Tarzs living in a physical body? not to mention
> > > stepping in to the breach between one Eck Master and
> > > another? How can so many words from history equate to
> > > a "LIVING" Eck Master? These are questions a person
> > > looking at Eckankar history might ask themself. And how
> > > the word "Master" / "spiritual traveler", became "Living Eck
> > > Master" (Or, why?). How would you answer any of these questions?
> > > Curious.
> > >
> > > *********
> > >
> > > "The Living ECK Master is the only man, or should I say
> > > being, who is capable of manifesting both individualism and
> > > universalism in their full expressions. He is a law unto him-
> > > self, does what he pleases, has what he wants, comes and
> > > goes absolutely at his own will, and asks no favors of any
> > > man. Nobody can hinder him in the execution of his will. All
> > > things are at his command. He is not a slave to anyone. He
> > > is no timeserver, is not bound by any rule or custom outside himself,
> > > and he is a citizen of all the universes of God. He
> > > bows only to God and not to any person or entity on this
> > > plane or any other plane.
> > >
> > > - ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, Copyright 1969,
> > > 1987 ECKANKAR, 2nd Printing 1988, p. 67 (3rd paragraph)
> > >
> > > Etznab
> > >
> > > P.S. Apology if any typos.
> >
> > For trivial purposes and future reference, the following
> > represesents a transcription of two paragraphs from the
> > 1973 copyright - Letters to Gail, Vol. Two - of letter 89
> > dated June 28, 1963 listed in Table of Contents under
> > the title: How to Find the Guru. (all words illustrated
> > in italics)
> >
> > "[....]
> >
> > A genuine master is the super-man of history, and by virtue
> > of his development, he has become the prototype of the race,
> > the most splendid specimen of manhood, the nobelest of the
> > noble. He has the best of health, a high, keen, penetrating
> > mind, quick of wit and sound of judgement. He may not be
> > educated by formal education, but his mind has undergone
> > the hardest training and discipline. He is the only man ever
> > manifested in all history in whom individualism and
> > universalism are combined in their full expression; this in
> > spite of the assertion of some philosophers that such a
> > combination is impossible. But you see the Master stands
> > alone, for he is a law unto himself, does what he pleases
> > and he asks favors of no man.
> >
> > "Neither can any man hinder him in the execution of his
> > will, for he has all things at his own command, and if he
> > suffers hardships, or inconvieniences, that is because he
> > chooses to do so for some purpose. He is the supreme
> > giver, not a receiver and he always pays for what he gets.
> > He is slave to no one, is no time server, is bound by no
> > rule or custom outside of himself, and he is a citizen of
> > the whole world. His life and teachings are universal. He
> > belongs to no race or time, but to all nations and all
> > times. He is a paradox in religion, teaches no theology,
> > has none, yet he is the most religious of all. His system
> > is not a religion, yet it leads to the most complete
> > religious experience, and the happiest, for he is
> > absolutely universal in all his teachings. He has no
> > creed, yet he never antagonizes any creed, sect, or
> > institution. He finds no fault with anyone or anything,
> > yet he draws the sharpest lines between the good and
> > bad. He considers human weakness only an illness
> > brought on by abberations or engrams.
> >
> > [....]"
> >
> > [Based on: Letters to Gail, Vol. Two, Copyright 1977,
> > Fourth Printing 1986, p. 126 (2nd & 3rd paragraphs).
> >
> > The terms "MAHANTA" & "Living ECK Master"
> > are not illustrated in this letter.
> >
> > Etznab
>
> I like this thread because it began with quotes about a "master". However, the oldest Eckankar version (from L.T.G. 2) is something even more interesting to me on account of the time it was written.
>
> Btw, Who does the research for Eckankar? I wonder. Many people (I suspect) believed the Eckankar master was somehow special, or unique. Also (I suspect) until they find Paul Twitchell, the founder, copying from other people's books, his successor's (Darwin Gross') secretary denying any plagiarism and then his successor (Harold Klemp) finding a "growing list" of which he was reportedly not so happy. How are these Eckankar masters in any way superior in intellect compared with the average person. In fact, in some ways they look (to me) less than average. Who copies spiritual information from books, attributes that to someone else, founds a "new" spiritual path and religion upon the information and then dawns the title of "master", etc.? Paul Twitchell? After Paul is dead and questions are asked, Who makes believe there was no plagiarism and that Paul Twitchell was his "master"? Darwin Gross? After many more years and many more questions, Who then begins research about Paul Twitchell, about examples of plagiarism and discovers a growing list? Harold Klemp?
>
> Why weren't Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp aware of these things from the very beginning? And why didn't they tell people about all these things from the very beginning? Is it because 1.) They didn't know? 2.) They didn't want to know about it. or 3.) They knew, but didn't want to talk about it? Perhaps there are other reasons to choose from.
>
> After it was all said and done ... actually it was 1980 and before Harold gave his talks about Paul Twitchell, the former 1st President of Eckankar, personal friend and doctor of Paul Twitchell went on record saying:
>
> Date: June 19, 1980
>
> My wife and I opened the first Eck class in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul [Paul Twitchell] many times and was the main speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away. Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied. I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what he had done and his answer was "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. As far as Darwin (Gross) is concerned, my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master. I don't think that a Master would divorce his wife and seek many other female companions.
>
>                                              Signed: Louis Bluth, MD.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434
>
> The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master.
>
> That was 1980 and before Harold Klemp became the leader of Eckankar (1981). Well, I wonder why Darwin Gross was trying to find a replacement as early as 1980. Why he divorced his wife (Also the former wife of Paul Twitchell, and the woman who helped appoint Darwin Gross as Living Eck Master in the first place. - 1971) I wonder if it had anything to do with David Lane's book; information - a lot of which - Eckankar was NOT in the habit of making public or distributing to its members. (I'm mostly referring to a growing list of plagiarisms and the plagiarized, or copied from author's names.)
>
> People in the past have alleged coverup. That certain information was covered up. However, Harold Klemp already did come out in the 1980s and admit a number of things. IMO, however, the biggest coverup is the real identity of Rebazar Tarzs and a number of other Eck Masters. I too suspect some form of coverup in this regard, because these "Eck Masters" are like "foundational" material; the removal of which could cause people to ask the #1 questions: What about the Living Eck Master? Where did he get all of his information about Eckankar from?
> If not from the Eck Masters then from who? Or, what?

[...] The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master. [... .]

[Henosis Sage]

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 10:23:40 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:
snipped a bit

> >
> > After it was all said and done ... actually it was 1980 and before Harold gave his talks about Paul Twitchell, the former 1st President of Eckankar, personal friend and doctor of Paul Twitchell went on record saying:
> >
> > Date: June 19, 1980
> >
> > My wife and I opened the first Eck class in Sun City, Cal. I personally treated Paul [Paul Twitchell] many times and was the main speaker in Cincinnati when he passed away. Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied. I confronted him [Paul Twitchell] with what he had done and his answer was "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." The trouble is that he never gave anyone credit as to where he got it. As far as Darwin (Gross) is concerned, my opinion is that he is a fake as a Master. I don't think that a Master would divorce his wife and seek many other female companions.
> >
> >                                              Signed: Louis Bluth, MD.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434
> >
> > The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master.
> >
> > That was 1980 and before Harold Klemp became the leader of Eckankar (1981). Well, I wonder why Darwin Gross was trying to find a replacement as early as 1980. Why he divorced his wife (Also the former wife of Paul Twitchell, and the woman who helped appoint Darwin Gross as Living Eck Master in the first place. - 1971) I wonder if it had anything to do with David Lane's book; information - a lot of which - Eckankar was NOT in the habit of making public or distributing to its members. (I'm mostly referring to a growing list of plagiarisms and the plagiarized, or copied from author's names.)
> >
> > People in the past have alleged coverup. That certain information was covered up. However, Harold Klemp already did come out in the 1980s and admit a number of things. IMO, however, the biggest coverup is the real identity of Rebazar Tarzs and a number of other Eck Masters. I too suspect some form of coverup in this regard, because these "Eck Masters" are like "foundational" material; the removal of which could cause people to ask the #1 questions: What about the Living Eck Master? Where did he get all of his information about Eckankar from?
> > If not from the Eck Masters then from who? Or, what?
>
> [...] The letter excerpt says "since the author of the book said it better than I could I copied it." O.K. The AUTHOR said it. The AUTHOR that P.T. and Eckankar failed to credit; and / or replaced with another name, the name of an Eck Master. [... .]

---

re: this bit by Bluth "Paul was a sincere student in the beginning and I considered him honest. Problems between him and his wife Gail led him to believe she was going to leave him and he desperately wanted to keep her. So when she demanded more money and better living, he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them. I helped him write the Herb book and went to Riverside University and took Sanskrit, so basically much of the material is good because it is copied."

My understanding is that the twitchell's were not travelling great even after
IMSIAF came out. The income from Lancer books was very small, but it did generate interest and new members, such as Patti S, Marge & Harold Klemp, and Darwin Gross, who all joined in 1968 after reading IMSIAF by Steiger and checking out an eckankar talk by Twitchell.

This places the timing at late 1968 when thew interest increased, and 1969 when
the "office" was disorganised and new people put in place regularly.

It is my understanding that Dr Bluth and his wife joined late 65 or early 1966.
He was a major initiator all the way through, and became "president" of the new board set up in January 1969.

particularly Bluth says this: "... he started to write things and copy from other books. He [Paul Twitchell] borrowed my books on Radha Soami and copied a large share from them."

OK.

I had a peak at this post the other day again.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.religion.eckankar/uPknEzb_5Co

After TTF and IMSIAF the next major books were:

1969 Twitchell, Paul. Eckankar: the Key to Secret Worlds,
(First use of 'the Mahanta, the living Eck Master' in a book early 1969)
Illuminated Way Press, San Diego, 1969. (First Published by Lancer Books)

Therefore again minimal income from book royalties via Lancer Books. Paul mentions this in the 1980 dobtlem book. (?)

and then:
1969 Twitchell, Paul. The Flute of God.*
(Redacted edited Orion magazine series Mar 1966 to Mar 1968)
Menlo Park, Ca: Illuminated Way Publishing, 1969

Not many text sources have been found for Eckankar: the Key to Secret Worlds.
Could it be drawn from some of Bluths RS books?

I ask that because I don;t recall twitchell mentioning that book before it was published, as opposed to say he mentions the SKS & TFC pre-1965/69 in LTG.


1970-07-13 Stranger by the River.*
Las Vegas, Illuminated Way Press. 176 p. (c) Paul Twitchell; 13Jul70; A272483.

WE do know that a major source for SBTR Is "Radhasoami Mat Prakash".

1970-10-21 The Far Country.*
Las Vegas, Illuminated Way Press. 247 p. (c) Paul Twitchell; 210ct70; A272485

That was originally written in 1964, at San Francisco.

1970-10-29 Dialogues with the Master.*
Las Vegas, Illuminated Way Press. 240 p. (c) Paul Twitchell; 290ct70; A272488.

That was supposedly written in 1956/57.

1970 The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad. Book 1.*
Las Vegas, Illuminated Way Press. 192 p. (c) Paul Twitchell; I40vt71; A272487.
and
1971-10-15 The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad. Book 2.*
Las Vegas, Nev., Illuminated Way Press. 216 p. Appl. author: Paul Twitchell

I suspect these were at least half "compiled" during 1964 through 1965. I think they were originally "discourses" for the early students.

So there's little RSMP but definitely PotM and other Johnson and Kirpal related material in those books ....

So in 1969 thru 1971, when Bluth was around in an 'authoritive' position, and when the time may have been where Gail & Paul had relationship issues over $$, Twitchell was writing/compiling the following books, which imho, are somewhat different to his earlier ones and articles.

These were most likely finished after Steiger arrived on the scene, after Bluth being President, post the creation of Mahanta LEM title, and it had become based in Las Vegas NV.

IF what Bluth says as reported by Lane is correct then it is possible the books he refers to could have been in these major books::

1971 Twitchell, Paul. The Spiritual Notebook.*
Santa Monica, Ca.:DeVorss & Co., 1971.

1972 Twitchell, Paul Herbs: The Magic Healers*
Eckankar 1972, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 86-80814

1972 Twitchell, Paul The Eck-Vidya Ancient Science of Prophecy,*
ISBN 1-57043-030-6, Eckankar 1972,

and here and there in
1975 Gail Twitchell Gross; ECKANKAR Illuminated Way Letters
(Republished Monthly Chela letters)
Illuminated Way Press, San Diego CA. 1975;

1980-06 The Eck-Ynari: The Secret Knowledge of Dreams*
Paperback - June, 1980 by Paul Twitchell (Author), Darwin Gross (Author)

---------

I have never looked and never will, but I suspect much of his fiction books would have been plagiarised from various other stories/novels as well. Maybe his own he sold as a pulp fiction westerns, detective stories, and sci fi.

Just sayin' ...