Who?, or What? is Rebazar Tarzs Really?
Etznab
INTRODUCTION - The Far Country, by Paul
Twitchell (3rd paragraph):
"Rebazar Tarzs, the great ECK Master, from
the eastern region of Tibet, is the moving figure
in this book. He went through a complete series
of dialogues with me, about the whole works of
ECKANKAR, the ancient science of Soul Travel.
He also included in these discourses the planes
beyond the physical senses. Hence the title The
FAR COUNTRY, meaning those worlds which are
generally invisible to man and his outer facilities."
******************************************************
Chapter One - The Far Country (Copyright 1970,
3rd Printing 1972, p. 27), by Paul Twitchell (the
modern day founder of Eckankar):
[Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell]
" 'The whole universe is considered as One, the
true ECKANKAR. There is perfect oneness in the
universe, which is also co-existent with God, infinite,
unlimited. Hence the SUGMAD is Nirankar, i.e.
formless.' "
******************************************************
Now take a look at the 1939 book called The Path
of the Masters, by Julian Johnson (Chapter 5 - God
and the Grand Hierarchy of the Universe, section 4.,
3rd paragraph) - [* = words in italics]:
"The whole universe is considered as *one, the
true Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the
universe, which is also coexistent with God - infinite,
unlimited. Hence, the Soami is *nirankar, that is,
formless. As such, he is without personality, hence
without name."
BTW, that illustrated only a small section from
the two books.
For those industrious enough - and not living in a
state of denial - one could open the chapter to Paul
Twitchell's Eckankar book and compare it with what
appeared decades earlier by Johnson.
My question is about whether Rebazar Tarzs was
a real living person by that name? I'm serious!
Judging by the number of material allegedly given
to Paul Twitchell via Rebazar Tarzs. Its near and, in
some places, exact similarity to illustrations in The
Path of the Masters ... doesn't it raise a number of
eyebrows when people look at the two side by side?
I believe an online copy for The Path of the Masters
book exists, and I'll try to find a link so Eck members
(or people) who already have Paul Twitchell's book -
The Far Country - can compare the two and see how
much similar material I am referring to.
For a little bit more perspective on this subject, the
following might be of interest.
******************************************************
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 be-
tween 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 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 com-
panions.
Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434
******************************************************
Mr Bluth. I believe, was the "president of Eckankar" at
the time of Paul Twitchell's death in September 1971.In
Ford Johnson's book - Confessions of a God Seeker - Mr.
Bluth (I believe) was referred to as a "one-time follower of
Sawan Sing.
Why does this appear to mean anything to me? Simply
because Sawan Singh was the Master of Julian Johnson
and his picture appears in The Path of the Masters book!
What I am having trouble with is trying to clarify whether
or not Rebazar Tarzs was / is a real person living today, &
whether the person described (and illustrated) by Eckankar
was / is more than Paul Twitchell's copied words from that
Radha Soami book.
In light of this evidence, what is Eckankar's current
position about Rebazar Tarzs. Is he real? or imaginary?
I'm not sure what the current position is.
Etznab
Etznab
Here is an online copy (PDF) of The Path of the Masters.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePathOfTheMasters
Etznab
TianYue
Bluth claimed to have followed Rahdasoami for 17 years before becoming
an Eckist. I heard him speak a couple of times.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
Thanks for sharing that information. It helps to hear
history from people who were there at the time. From
those who had a more contemporary experience.
It is different, I think, when a person looks at some
history when their own experience - and perhaps the
recorded history - is decades removed from what was
the actual truth.
Etznab
Jasmyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps you never heard Fran Blackwell speak about Rebazar Tarzs? She
had a couple of encounters with him just prior to her ever hearing
there was such a thing as Eckankar, before she'd ever heard of the
name Rebazar Tarzs.
Jasmyn
TianYue
I remember the time when I was meeting with a woman to give her an
initiation. She had been a long time member, but was becoming
skeptical of Eckankar. She had widely shared her experience of having
met Klemp on the inner before coming into Eckankar, and when she later
saw a photo, she exclaimed, "that's the same man!" But after years,
she reflected back upon that experience, and said she wasn't all that
certain the experience was really Klemp. She had jumped to a
conclusion because she was passionate and wanted to match the inner
experience with Klemp. After years of time to ponder her words, she
retracted them.
She revealed this to me after she had received her initiation, and she
soon after left Eckankar. She had awakened from the fog of Eckankar.
People can make mistakes, and often will make things fit because they
want them to fit. People can experience anything they like through
intense auto suggestion. This is why people need to be careful in
accepting anything that seems to support their beliefs, because one of
the most unreliable of phenomena is the "mystical experience." Just
because you see something on the inner doesn't mean it is true, but if
you really, really want it to be true, you might just believe it
without question.
This has happened to me, and to many others who later realized it was
a form of self deception.
Tianyue
Jasmyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
The woman you speak of decided it was not who she thought it was. But
that doesn't negate what so many others have experienced. It's not
too important to them what another's experience is, because they know
their own.
Jasmyn
Kinpa
and just because Kent and several others have decided that they
decieved themselves, that doesnt mean they were correct, nor does it
mean that every other person's experience is a self deception...my
wife is another who spoke to Rebazar Tarzs many times before EVER
knowing there was such a thing as Eckankar...it's funny, she has met a
great many of these "made up" Masters, and been told thier names
before ever hearing of them, seeing a picture, or reading ANY eck
book, and Wah-Z is among those...self deception??? how??? simply not
possible lol...i suppose that former students will say we both
decieved ourselves when we spoke to Rebazar Tarzs, and saw him
speaking to us, at the very same time, in our living room...again,
self deception??? hardly~! this was no dream pre-programmed by
ourselves, this was a waking experience, happening simultaneously to
two different people, and it's happened more than once...we KNOW,
regardless of what ANYONE says :oD
Jasmyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for telling us about that, Kinpa. It goes along with some
experiences from people I know personally as well, and some for myself
that I no longer need anyone else's experiences to lean on. Long ago,
some of these things were called miracles when something out of the
ordinary occurred. But ordinary can be just seeing into areas we've
not seen previously.
Jasmyn
Rich
by M. R.
"If you want to survive," boomed the deep voice of my visitor, "you must
follow my instructions. As soon as the sun rises, you must go to the bus
stop."
A heart attack had forced me to quit my job, and after fifteen days in
bed, I was as weak as a kitten, unable to do anything for myself. I stared
in disbelief at the bearded stranger by my bedside. Who was he? Where had
he come from?
Strangely I felt no fear. The beautiful energy that radiated from him was
familiar. I had felt that comforting presence at my side day and night
since I had fallen ill.
"The bus stop is seven blocks away," I protested. "How will I ever get
there?"
"If you want to survive, you must go now," came his reply. "Walk slowly.
Catch the bus to Santo Domingo Plaza."
Again I asked, "How can I walk seven blocks in this condition?"
Brushing my protest aside, he repeated his command, "You must go now!"
Then he was gone.
I dragged myself out of bed and struggled into my clothes. All the way to
the bus stop I fought to stay on my feet, shaking and sweating profusely.
But every time I faltered, I heard my benefactor's voice: "Keep going,
keep going." Finally I reached the bus stop.
When the bus to Santo Domingo Plaza arrived, I felt a steadying arm help
me aboard. There was no one in sight.
At my destination, I exited the bus and began to walk slowly across the
plaza as I had been instructed. My inner guide spoke again. "Sit and rest
on that bench for a few minutes. Then resume walking up the hill. Be
alert. There is a man on his way down who has what you need."
After resting a bit, I continued on. I was ready to collapse when I saw a
small Indian man, about fifty years old, clad in a red poncho, a round
white hat, and short white pants. He was carrying a small basket. He had a
beautiful face.
Heading down the hill straight toward me, the vendor cried, "Herbs for
your heart! Herbs for your heart!" I tried to hurry toward him, but the
pain in my chest made it impossible to go any further. I waited anxiously
for him to reach me.
"Grandpa, how much for all your herbs and the basket to carry it in?" I
asked.
"One centavo," he replied sweetly. I could scarcely believe my ears. I
wanted to hug him, but I knew it would be unseemly. Instead I placed my
arm on his shoulder and thanked him profusely. I was so grateful. But my
effort had weakened me even further, so I sat down on the curb, hugging my
lifesaving basket. I turned to wave one more thank-you, but the little man
had disappeared.
After a long and difficult journey home, I prepared the herbs and began to
take them. In eight days, my heart was completely healed. I began to
exercise to regain my strength and was back at work twenty days later.
All this happened many, many years ago. Years later, after I joined
Eckankar, I discovered the identity of my black-bearded, maroon-robed
savior-the ECK Master Rebazar Tarzs! He had sat invisibly by my bed
throughout my illness and directed me to the mysterious vendor whose herbs
saved my life.
An Appearance by the Tibetan ECK Master Rebazar Tarzs
By J. C.
For nearly two years my sister Jane, who is a psychiatrist, had been going
through the experience of being publicly maligned by the press. Quite by
mistake her secretary had incorrectly billed a patient, and one of the
large health insurance companies decided to use Jane as a legal test case.
They took her to court and let her have it with both barrels.
Her lawyer extracted more and more money from her only to drop the case at
the last minute. Upon investigation Jane found that her case was indeed
indefensible and that he had been leading her down the proverbial garden
path.
In our phone conversations (Jane lives in another state), I could hear the
exhaustion and discouragement in her voice. She didn't know if she could
get through a court appearance with lawyers hurling accusations at her.
"Joyce, even though I'm innocent, I'm afraid I'll break down emotionally,
which will make me look guilty."
That conversation prompted me to write her a letter with a message that
came from deep within myself. I told her about the dark night of Soul-a
time of desolation we experience for our spiritual benefit. I explained
that it was often a turning point in our lives.
"The ECK Masters are dedicated to helping Souls through this dark night of
Soul. They often appear in dreams, so examine your nightly adventures
closely. I am enclosing a copy of the ECKANKAR Journal-be sure to read the
article by Sri Harold Klemp in which he recommends softly singing
'HU-Mahanta' for spiritual help."
The next time I talked to Jane, she had been through her first court
appearance. She mentioned that she had repeated that phrase, "HU-Mahanta,"
over and over to herself. It seemed to keep her mind off the negative
situation. I said I was glad to hear that and asked if she could she
remember any helpful dreams.
"Well, it's funny. I can't seem to remember my dreams, but my friends have
gone out of their way to tell me theirs. And people have been helpful. I
especially remember this unusual priest. I first noticed him looking at me
in the courtroom. Later, when I went downstairs to fill out some papers,
he was there too. He came over and put his hand on my shoulder and said,
'I know the trouble you are going through. It will turn out for the best.'
How would he know that, since I've never seen him before?"
At that point it occurred to me to ask what this priest looked like. She
gave me an exact description of the great Tibetan ECK Master, Rebazar
Tarzs! I suggested that perhaps he was one of the ECK Masters of the Order
of Vairagi that I had told her about.
Some weeks went by before we talked again, at which time she said, "Joyce,
it's the most amazing thing! I was looking through the ECKANKAR Journal,
and there was a picture of the priest. His name is Rebazar Tarzs!"
The postscript to this story is that Jane's trouble wasn't alleviated. She
had to endure the accusations made in court and upheld by the law, and so
lost her means of livelihood in that state. The strain was too much for
her marriage, and it fell apart. But the last time I spoke to my sister
she seemed rejuvenated. She was very excited about starting her new life
on Cape Cod, which, she said, is like a dream come true. And I know I'll
write her a letter from time to time from that place deep within, so we
can both learn more about the mysterious ways of Spirit.
The Cloak
By Phil Morimitsu
I sat down at my desk to do a little reading, but I was restless. I
wondered about the whole business of humility. I'd remembered hearing some
talk of humility, of how, if you thought you had it, you probably didn't.
It seemed like it was some mystical thing that you had to be lucky enough
to have been born with, like a pedigree. I put my book down and went for a
walk.
While walking down one of the streets near my apartment, I started talking
to myself. "I wonder how Masters like Rebazar Tarzs gained humility?"
Rebazar Tarzs was one of the Masters I'd always had an affinity for, as
well as great respect. He was a no-nonsense person, strong without being
arrogant. But was he humble? I realized that I really didn't know what
humility was. I'd always had the impression that humility meant that you
groveled before everyone and put yourself on the ground for others to walk
on. But here was a Master who, in the farthest stretches of my
imagination, I couldn't imagine doing these things. So I knew right then
and there that it was my conception of humility that was off.
Then there was Sri Harold Klemp's very firm but gentle demeanor. I always
felt a sense of humility from him. What was it that these two Adepts had
in common?
"I could get us both together, and you could compare us," came a voice
over my shoulder. It was Wah Z.
"Well, I don't mean to be so crass, Wah Z," I answered as I kept walking,
"but it might help if I could ask the two of you about it."
At that instant, I had the strange feeling that there were three of us
walking together. It was a solid, firm, and strong presence. It was
Rebazar Tarzs. He didn't even have to say anything; I was getting such a
strong impression.
"So you want to learn about humility?" he said to me.
We reached a small corner park, and I sat on one of the benches. Wah Z
joined me, and then Rebazar appeared in front of us both under one of the
trees. He was in his usual knee-length maroon robe. At times, in schools
or wisdom temples, I'd seen him in a pure white robe, with one thin gold
stripe around each sleeve cuff, but now he was dressed for outdoors. He
was a tall five feet eleven and a half inches and looked to be about
thirty-three to thirty-five years old. He was built lean like a
prizefighter-maybe a middleweight or light heavyweight. He had a broad
face, taut, that was dark like he had a deep tan. He was wearing a beard,
neatly trimmed and short, which was black like his hair. He had absolutely
no body fat, as far as I could tell. There was a sharpness when he spoke.
He attacked the words in an almost restless manner. Everything he said had
a resolution to it-well-punctuated. He used his hands a lot, almost like
karate chops. He'd use his whole hand like a blade carving the air as he
spoke, moving quickly and sharply. His eyes flashed as if he could cut you
with his gaze, but there was also an ease to this being. He was a strange
combination of dynamism and ease at the same time. He looked like the kind
of guy that no one in their right mind would want to mess with, but also
one that you knew would never give you a bum steer.
"You can consciously acquire humility," he said abruptly.
I said nothing. I just listened and waited for the next thing he was going
to say. I glanced over to Wah Z who was sitting on the park bench next to
me. He was smiling, and I felt he was trying to hold back his mirth while
watching me sit and listen with such strict attention to this powerful
being.
"Think of the ways you love your Master." His eyes bore into mine, as I
thought of Wah Z. "You cannot love without first opening your heart."
I nodded silently.
"Now when you wear the cloak of humility, you open your heart. Think of
all the Masters you've met and read about. When you met them, did they not
all open their hearts to you?"
I thought about it, and yes, he was right. That was the one outstanding
characteristic of all the ECK Masters I'd met. They put others first,
opening their hearts to them.
Rebazar continued, "We find that humility is the ability to see the
divineness in each person, before it manifests outwardly, no matter who
they are. For is not each being and creature a spark of the Divine Sugmad?
And as we learn from each man, we share the open heart, and love. Thus
love and humility go together."
He looked at me, then to Wah Z. The two Masters gazed at each other for a
second, then both grinned. Rebazar turned his gaze to me. His eyes bore
into me like cold ice that burned at the same time. His expressionless
face slowly turned into a grin, and then I found myself grinning too. Then
he burst out laughing, his head thrown back, his hands on his hips. All
three of us were now laughing out loud. When the laughter gradually
stopped, he was gone; but I could still hear the faint chuckling of his
sharp voice fading away. I turned to Wah Z and without saying a word, we
both got up and started back to my apartment.
Encounter with an ECK Master
By M. J. C.
Many years ago, my husband and I traveled to a large city to meet with a
longtime member of Eckankar. We had become very interested in Eckankar
after my husband had found an ECK book in our local library.
Now we wanted to talk to someone who had experience with it.
When we arrived, we were met with much love and warmth. We were shown to
the ECKist's living room. On the wall was a large painting of a man with
black hair and short beard wearing a maroon robe. He was standing with one
foot in a small boat and the other foot on the rocky shore. His hand
reached out, as welcoming as his wonderful smile.
I recognized him at once. I had known him during my childhood and searched
for him ever since. Now twenty-five years later, here was a painting of
him.
Old memories I had long forgotten started coming back. My heart was
pounding with excitement.
As soon as we were back in the car, I asked my husband who the
black-haired man in the painting was.
"He's Rebazar Tarzs, one of the ECK Masters. Why ?"
"That man saved my family's lives during the Korean War," I replied, as
the memories came flooding back. It was so exciting, as if it had happened
only a few days ago.
The war had been going on for months. We were trying to get away from the
North Korean soldiers and stay away from the combat zones. My brothers and
sisters and I were constantly hungry, sometimes walking for many days
without food, hoping to find a safe place to rest.
At last we made our way into the south, away from the fighting. There were
so many people and no food or water. My parents soon found their money was
worthless. Those who had extra food wanted clothes or blankets in
exchange.
During the bombing of our home, we had had only enough time to dress and
take our soon-to-be useless money with us. A blanket or coat would have
been worth much more.
We were all alive and together, but slowly starving and unbelievably
tired. All the rules of our society had changed, and we just didn't know
how to survive in this new arena of war. Our hunger forced my parents to
go out on longer and longer searches for food and water or things that
could be traded for food. One day I felt I needed to go with my mother on
her daily search. She told me to hold on to her shirt and not to let go,
no matter what happened.
Everywhere we went, there were people and children crying. I grew tired,
but my mother told me that if I fell the people would take me away. I
don't know how far we walked, but that fear kept me going.
By the end of the day, I was so weary I stumbled and almost fell. When I
looked up, I saw two big boots in front of me. Then I gazed into the eyes
of a big dark man in a strange uniform.
For a moment fear clutched me. But the love from his eyes was so beautiful
and peaceful.
A smile spread across his broad face. My weakness disappeared. As we stood
in war-torn Korea, he said in a strange language, "You will be all right."
Yet I understood each word. Who was this man? My mother, unmoving and
silent, stared in awe. The man took off his jacket and handed it to me.
"Trade this for the food you need," he said. I nodded my understanding,
took my mother's hand, and headed back to our family.
As we walked away I turned to look once more at his love-filled eyes. But
he was gone! He was too tall to disappear so quickly among the people
around us. Yet he was nowhere to be seen. I remember having such a deep
sense of loss-for someone I didn't even know.
Since my childhood, I had often wondered about that wonderful man. Now
after finding Eckankar I can visit with him again from time to time.
I know that Divine Spirit and the ECK Masters have been protecting and
guiding me for a long time. They have been there for me not only in times
of suffering but also in times of joy.
Experience in India
By Jaswinder Kurr
I grew up in a small farming town in India, near the school where my
father taught. From my bedroom window, I could see the Himalayas towering
behind green pastures. They seemed to stretch into the heavens, as far as
the eye could see.
Sometimes when I gazed out deep in thought, I would become aware of a
presence in my room. I looked around only to find no one there. Yet I
seemed to know where the person was standing.
I discovered that if I turned my head really fast I could glimpse a man in
a maroon robe, with dark, clear eyes.
One day my mother said, "Jassie, the next time you see this being in your
room, challenge the purity of his intentions by saying, 'Sat Nam,
Vi-Guru.' If he is not working for your highest good, he will disappear."
Sat Nam is a name for God. Vi-Guru is a true teacher. In Eckankar this is
the Mahanta, my inner guide. These words were very familiar to me because
my parents are Sikhs, and these are common terms in that religion.
Anytime I became aware of this man in my room, I would just close my eyes
and say, "Sat Nam, Vi-Guru." Instead of vanishing into thin air, his
presence would get stronger! Somewhere along the line, without consciously
being aware of it, I accepted him as my friend.
Whenever I visited my grandparents, I would walk a mile or so through a
beautiful pasture, past a lake with a grove of mango trees. As I walked
and skipped along, I would become aware of footsteps right beside me. They
would stay with me for a while and then go away.
This continued until I was in my early teens, when I moved to England. I
did not feel this presence again for several years. Then a friend gave me
a book on Eckankar. I read it and was really impressed. Finally someone
was speaking my language!
One day, as we sat discussing the book in my friend's home, I looked
across the room and saw a painting on the wall. Walking up to it, I
pointed to a figure in the painting.
"Who is this man?" I asked.
My friend smiled and said, "He is the great Tibetan ECK Master, Rebazar
Tarzs."
"This is the man who used to appear in my room years ago."
At that moment of recognition my whole being vibrated. All the many
experiences I'd had with Rebazar Tarzs flashed before my eyes.
I realized that no matter what path we follow, what we believe or don't
believe, these spiritual giants, the ECK Masters, work to uplift us. They
guide and protect us and are right beside us, waiting for a spark of
recognition or an opportunity to take us a spiritual step forward.
If you want to meet one, try singing HU tonight.
An ECK Master Appears at My Patient's Bedside
By M. B.
Twelve years ago, before I was in Eckankar, I worked as a nurse in a
coronary intensive care unit. One day the charge nurse said, "Why don't
you take care of this patient, Mary. I think she'd enjoy your care."
The woman's name was Ann. Following a heart attack in which she nearly
died, she was seeing into other dimensions of reality. The other nurses
thought she was confused and hallucinating. I knew she wasn't.
One day I came in to find her chatting away with her Aunt Bertha and Uncle
Fred, who had both translated (died) years ago. She asked if I could see
them.
"No, but I believe you can," I replied.
"Other people think I'm crazy," she said.
I assured her that I didn't. Over the next few days I asked her if she
could see anyone else.
"Yes, there is someone in the corner of the room," she said. She called
him the Dark Angel and said she didn't like him very much. She didn't
think he was bad, just severe. He was waiting for her. She didn't like to
look at him since his presence meant she was going to die.
"Let's pray together, and we'll ask God to send somebody else," I offered.
The only prayer we both knew was the Lord's Prayer, so we said that
together. When we finished, she looked over in the corner again. The Dark
Angel was gone. Another man with black, curly hair and dark eyes had taken
his place. He was wearing a dark red robe with a rope for a belt and
sandals. He carried a tall staff.
"He looks like a monk. He has the most beautiful eyes," Ann said.
I asked his name, and she replied, "Ra . . . buzzer."
"His name is Bizarre?" I asked.
"Oh, I don't know what it is. It's Rumpelstiltskin," she said, referring
to the old children's story. I could see she was getting agitated, so we
stopped talking about it.
For the rest of her stay in the hospital, the man in a maroon robe stood
in the corner of Ann's room. She took a great deal of comfort from his
presence.
Nine months after caring for Ann, I went to an ECK center and saw pictures
of the ECK Masters for the first time. I recognized Rebazar Tarzs as the
Master who had brought such comfort to my patient during her illness. He
is the ECK Master who helped Paul Twitchell establish Eckankar as a
modern-day teaching.
Israeli Woman Remembers Healing and Love from a Tibetan ECK Master
By S. O.
I have developed a friendship with a young man living in Jerusalem. Most
of his body is paralyzed. Nevertheless, he is active in various meditation
and New Age groups and volunteers to help other handicapped people.
Whenever I speak with this man, he is in high spirits despite his physical
problems. He is a beautiful vehicle for Divine Spirit. Because we often
talk about our mutual interest in the spiritual life, one day I offered to
visit him and share the divine love song of HU. After that he invited me
to give introductory talks on Eckankar in his home.
At one of these meetings I read a passage from Sri Harold Klemp's book
Soul Travelers of the Far Country. I passed the book around so attendees
could see the pictures of the ECK Masters on the cover. A woman named
Marianne became very excited.
"Who are these ECK Masters?" she exclaimed.
"They came to me about twelve years ago when I was having a very difficult
time."
She pointed at Rebazar Tarzs, saying, "He kept coming to me for about a
year. His presence gave my life a tremendous boost."
Looking at Gopal Das, she said, "He came to me several times about twelve
years ago. He is very tall, right?"
I confirmed this from my knowledge of the ECK writings.
"When I was about twenty-six years old," Marianne continued, "I received a
phone call from a man who said a friend had told him I was a very
interesting person he should get to know. We arranged to meet. This man
looked very much like Rebazar Tarzs. We had a brief and unusual
friendship. Odd thing is, every time I went to Tel Aviv to visit him,
there was a heavy downpour of rain. After about two months he disappeared
from my life as suddenly as he had entered."
After Marianne became a member of Eckankar, she realized the rain had been
a symbol of spiritual cleansing. Rebazar Tarzs had been saying to her,
"When you have cleansed yourself, you will be able to receive the high
teachings of ECK."
As for me, I recognized I might never have had the privilege of witnessing
Marianne's rediscovery of the ECK Masters if I had not met my young
handicapped friend in Jerusalem and shared the sacred love song of HU with
him. The steps Divine Spirit takes to reach a Soul who is ready often seem
roundabout, but they are more direct than we can know.
A Meeting with an ECK Master
By D. F.
One evening while a friend and I stowed away in her bedroom to confide in
one another away from her children, our light conversation turned to
serious philosophical matters. We opened our hearts and divulged many
secret thoughts and goals. One of mine, I told her, was to experience
grace-whatever that truly meant.
She smiled and leaned across her bed to pull a book from the shelf. As she
handed it to me, I remember feeling as if the exchange was taking place in
slow motion.
The words on the cover sank into my heart: The Flute of God by Paul
Twitchell.
She didn't say much except that the book was written by the man who
founded a teaching called Eckankar. He was a spiritual master she had met
once in a dream. She also said she had read the book no less than twenty
times over the years, and each time she read it, its words ran deeper and
more profound.
As soon as I got home, I opened the book. Each paragraph was so meaningful
and so right; I would reread them two, three, and four times. It was less
that I was learning something and more that the book confirmed what I'd
always thought, felt, and known to be true. I must have exclaimed, "Yes!"
out loud a hundred times in the first few days of poring over that little
book.
During my twelve-hour workdays not much else was on my mind except The
Flute of God. In the third week after receiving this spiritual gift,
something extraordinary happened.
It was 7:00 a.m., and I was standing on a New York subway platform. I
hoped to get a seat on the train so I could read in comfort all the way to
Wall Street. I jumped on the subway and saw one seat. But I decided to
relinquish it to another person who was competing for it and opted instead
to lean against the dirty end-door of the car.
Once under way, I wedged my briefcase between my feet and pulled out my
treasured Flute of God.
Several minutes later, I looked up for no particular reason. I found
myself staring directly into the eyes of a man standing two feet in front
of me. At that moment time ceased to exist.
Gazing into his eyes, I was engulfed by all-consuming love. I cannot
describe the feeling. It was actually far more than a feeling. It was a
knowing, deep and complete. I felt as if I'd come home. Perceptions were
passed to me, all truths of some kind, but I couldn't articulate them to
another person because they could not be separated into thoughts. There
was a wholeness about this knowing.
The next moment was overwhelming. I became aware that we shared a bond in
an all-consuming love that was unspeakably deep.
That scared me, and instantly I was back on the subway-staring at a
stranger. I must be out of my mind for staring back at this guy, I
thought. He's probably some kind of weirdo. I tore my gaze away, noticing
that I was physically very warm. But I had an overwhelming urge to return
to his eyes, so I glanced back up.
Again, perceptions flowed quickly before I tore myself away. I settled for
looking at his hand instead, which rested on the handrail overhead. He had
grasped the handrail of the subway car to steady himself.
When I felt I could take no more, I said so. Bending my head low, staring
into The Flute of God, I said inside myself, "Look, I can't take this
anymore, please go. And please don't go suddenly, because if I look up and
you aren't there and the subway hasn't even stopped to let you off like a
normal person, I'll really freak out. So I'll wait until the next stop,
and when the subway doors have opened giving you time to leave, I'll look
up."
So I waited. And when the subway doors had opened and began to close again
I looked up. He was gone.
Later that evening I met my friend who'd given me the book and her
daughter. The first thing I said to them was, "You guys! I met someone
today. I mean I really met someone today."
They looked at me curiously and somehow grasped what I meant. (They'd been
members of Eckankar for years, though I didn't know it at the time.) The
first question the daughter asked me was, "What did he look like?"
Look like? I hadn't thought about it. Stumbling, I told her he looked
Indian. Not American Indian but like someone from India. His skin was a
deep tan color. And as I thought about it, his presence had been almost
too vivid, like in a dream. He had a dark black beard, but it was cropped
really close to his face, giving a clean-cut impression.
The daughter got all excited and impatiently asked me what he was wearing.
Again, I had to think. "Well, you know it's strange; he wore a three-piece
suit. It had a vest (an outdated style), and the color was odd too. It was
a dark red or maroon and seemed to be made of a heavy wool."
At this, both of my friends became highly excited. The daughter was
yelling, "You met Rebazar Tarzs!" Rebazar who? I had no idea who they were
talking about. (Even though I'd seen the name in The Flute of God, I had
mispronounced it.) But I knew I'd met a spiritual teacher of some kind.
When she said, "Rebazar Tarzs" aloud, my whole being was shaken to the
core.
They asked if there was anything else about him, and I said that the most
important feature was his eyes. They were a deep chocolate brown, and his
gaze was so intense it was indescribable.
At that, the daughter said I had to go to their house that night, to look
at some pictures she had of the ECK Masters.
It would be two hours before we could leave for their house due to a
meeting we were hosting. I felt elated and scared. I was sad that I hadn't
shown this being more respect somehow, and I walked around thanking him
inwardly a hundred times for taking the time to visit me. I knew that it
was the most real thing that had ever happened to me.
Later that evening I stood in my friend's house looking through her
pictures of ECK Masters. We came across a black-and-white sketch of a man
I instantly identified as the person I'd met on the subway.
She smiled and said, "Yes, that is Rebazar Tarzs."
An Out-of-Body Healing
By G. O.
In 1978 I had a severe accident while working for a railroad out near an
Indian reservation. I was crushed between two train cars and lost one leg
just below the knee. Just after the impact, my coworkers laid me on the
ground, and I was instantly out of the body.
Two beings met me in that other dimension, and one of them said, "Come
this way, I want to show you something."
They led me to an unusual temple. I spent forty-eight hours drifting in
and out of consciousness, as they taught me. I learned about myself as a
spiritual entity, that we live forever, why I'd lost my physical leg, and
that I had other, nonphysical bodies: the Emotional, Mental, Causal,
Etheric, and Soul forms.
Before I woke up, the beings said, "We will always be with you. Only now
we will come to you in the dream state, to remind you of what you've
learned."
For the next three weeks in the hospital, they met me in the inner worlds
every time I fell asleep. I never paid much attention to this experience.
I thought it was related to the heavy sedatives the doctors gave me. I
didn't share the experience with many people.
At the end of the three weeks, they told me they would continue to teach
me in the "light form." The dreams stopped, but I began to see little
sparkling lights out of the corner of my vision. It was disturbing, but I
still attributed it to sedative aftereffects.
Four days later I met a Blackfoot Indian family. They worked as trappers
and invited me to go with them into the wilderness the following year if I
got myself an artificial leg.
The following year I was guided back up to the mountains for more
spiritual and physical healing. I met the family again and began a
wilderness adventure with their dog team, tepee, log house, and canoes.
One afternoon I was outside working on the log house and overheard them
singing a word called HU. I ran outside and told them how beautiful it
was, and to please continue. They sounded so beautiful together. The
father went and got a book called The Shariyat-Ki Sugmad. "If you like the
music," he grinned, "maybe you should read the book. These are the
scriptures of Eckankar."
Every night they sat around the lanterns and read to each other from many
different books. But I never paid much attention. "I don't believe you
find answers in a religious book," I scoffed. "There's no truth in them.
Truth is inside."
"Well," he smiled, "I agree. But let me put it this way: You have nothing
to lose. You're in the middle of the wilderness."
The first words I read when I opened the book were "the first section of
these works, which was dictated by Fubbi Quantz, the great ECK Master, who
serves at the Katsupari Monastery in northern Tibet."
A feeling of strange familiarity came over me. I yelled to the father, "I
know this, I know this exactly! I've been to this monastery, I know what
it is."
All the family started rejoicing, they were so happy. The father went to
the house to get pictures of the ECK Masters.
When he showed them to me I instantly recognized one of the beings who had
helped me when I lost my leg. His name was Rebazar Tarzs. From that moment
on, I became a follower of Eckankar.
Without the ECK Masters' guidance, my accident would have led me into such
a dark place. Instead, it brought me the light of truth.
A Meeting with Rebazar Tarzs
By Dan Stryder
Suddenly, the Tibetan ECK Master Rebazar Tarzs was standing before me in
the dim alley where I walked. His gaze was intense.
"Do you understand what the Living ECK Master was trying to show you with
your last experience?" he said abruptly. "I don't think you do!"
The sudden appearance of this maroon-robed Adept sparked a deep emotion in
me, for he had been in my thoughts constantly all day. For some reason,
the sound of his voice and image of his face had been just beneath the
surface of my thinking, as if about to emerge. Now here he was, his black
hair and beard fading into the dark shadows of the twilight, a peaceful
glint in his eyes.
"Do you mean the Soul Travel experience last night?" I asked.
He nodded.
"I thought Harold was letting me have a chance to see that Soul survives
as the individual. That the individual is the true state of Soul."
Rebazar Tarzs turned to see the curious face of a black-and-white cat
peering through an opening in the fence. The cat seemed caught between
some inner desire to approach this ECK Master and its natural instincts
for survival through safety. Rebazar Tarzs took a few steps and knelt down
to scratch its furry ears, and the cat purred.
As I felt the power of the ECK Master's presence move with his attention
to the cat, I began to wonder if indeed I had missed something very
important from my experience.
Finally, he turned to me and said, "Now look, this Living ECK Master we
have is a very subtle Master, and not many understand him. But I am going
to be a bit more blunt when I say that he was trying to move you to that
state where you could see the whole of Eckankar. You are close to catching
it, and when you do, nothing will be able to shake it from you.
"One might think that after all these years of study you would have caught
the secret, but remember, not many will reach that point in this lifetime.
Look at all the masses of people on this planet. Look at movement after
movement that continues to abuse and take advantage of the individual
because they have not understood the secret.
"The one thing you should always remember is that all these movements, all
these groups, are battling for the individual. They have found the secret
that only Soul, the individual, is the central operating unit in the
worlds of God. Nothing can happen except through Soul. Nothing can exist
without It. The ECK, or reality, will only respond to Soul and nothing
else. This means that whoever can capture Soul, as you might net the fish
of the sea-as the Christians put it-will have the greatest power known.
"So why does man continually throw himself into groups and movements? He
sees himself as a Christian, a Democrat, a Communist, or a thousand other
designations, but never as Soul, the individual. He feels the need to
belong, so he searches out a group consciousness. He dearly loves to live
by rules and regulations, so he joins an organization. Alone, he feels
helpless, so he takes part in some action team with high aspirations to
change the world. This is Soul's way of looking for survival.
"But one day Soul outgrows these outer movements, which lose their
fascination for It. Soul begins to ask questions such as: Who am I? Where
am I going? But no one can answer them except the individual. Then Soul
begins the long, hard road to extricate Itself from the group
consciousness and regain Its individuality. This is when the ECK Masters
step in to offer their assistance, and thus the path of ECK appears when
the time is ripe. Now do you see how this all ties together?"
"I think so," I answered. "But then, how can there be an organization
carrying the name of Eckankar? Isn't this a contradiction?"
"There is not much in this world that isn't," he said. "When the ECK, the
Life Force, flows into this world It takes every form. It might be a
flower, a river, or a solar system. It might even be a mirage in the
desert or a vision of God. The ECK flows into this world but never finds
completion or perfection, so It is always changing: always dying in Its
old forms to be born into the new. It might come together to produce a
spiritual era, or It might hide for ages behind the traditional teachings.
The ECK is all of life, so don't try to fit It into some little box.
"The Living ECK Master might use an organization if his mission dictates
it, or he might work with a few close ones as a team. He is free to use
whatever means he can. But the minute his followers begin to feel they are
above others, the minute they begin to talk in "shoulds" or "should
nots"-or limit in any way a person's individual path of truth-then they
can become more of a hindrance than a help. He might try to lift them
beyond these areas, but he cannot force them; and if the situation grows
bad enough, he might just leave everything behind and walk the lonely
hills by himself, searching for those who truly seek the Light of God.
"Now don't shake your head, because this has happened in the past and will
happen again. This is indeed what makes for a contradiction. Thus, unless
the seeker looks beneath the surface of what he sees, he may never glimpse
the true teachings of ECK. He might miss what the Master is trying to tell
him.
"OK. Now I want to go back to this subject of the ways that Soul searches
for survival. If It cannot find survival through individuality, then Soul
might find it in fame or infamy. In other words, if Soul can preserve Its
image or name in the memories of others, then It might feel It has
survival. Or It may find survival vicariously through fleshly offspring,
such as the father or mother whose whole interest is the lives of their
children.
"Soul might take up some job that It feels is important in the running of
an organization. This can be Its mission, you see? Or It might choose
survival in the feeling that It is one of the few who knows some secret,
ages old. This is how the mystery schools have preserved themselves. They
claim to be a brotherhood that has endured from the ancient days of
civilization by passing down certain secrets. These secrets may not bring
immortality, but the individual finds survival by feeling a part of this
brotherhood.
"The point is that when Soul has a purpose or a goal, then It has
survival. But when Soul accepts the dreams of others, It loses something
vital. Once the individual begins to act out someone else's goal, or some
purpose established for It by others, then the interest and affection It
has for what It is doing becomes weakened. Do too much of this and Soul
can lose the very source of inspiration and ideas that will lead It out of
Its troubles and into the higher spiritual worlds.
"So you see, the true freedom of Soul to act upon Its wishes is the very
origin of your power to succeed. The greater your goal, the greater your
power to reach it. And out of this freedom and power comes the deepest
love for every act you perform. These are the three aspects, as I have
said before: freedom, power, and love.
"Now those who have said that harmony should come first and freedom second
are wrong. Without freedom, harmony is an act or a show; but with freedom,
harmony is the greatest expression of the divine law. This is what the
movements of today have overlooked. They have hidden the secret that Soul
is the central operating unit of life. This is why the individual is such
a trampled-on unit in our modern world.
"So, if you wish to have freedom within the worlds of God, to become the
spiritual traveler yourself, then you must first learn to control your own
will. An undisciplined will is your worst enemy. Next, you must control
your imagination; let nothing limit it, nor conform it. Last, you must
begin to make contact with the spiritual power Itself. You must learn to
live in the ECK and through It. The ECK Masters are always near those who
are bold and adventuresome.
"This is some of what you should have gotten from the experience the
Living ECK Master gave you!"
"I had no idea," I said.
The Tibetan nodded his head and pointed his finger at me. "There is always
more to ECK than meets the eye," he said, and let out a hearty laugh that
was infectious; it was so full of life.
Thirty Years Becoming an ECKist
By J. H.
Before 1982, I'd never heard the name Eckankar. In October of that year, I
met a young lady while visiting my sisters in Gary, Indiana. She told me
she was an ECKist.
My reply: "What's an ECKist?"
Well, she told me. So when I got back home to Dayton, Ohio, I picked up
some materials on Eckankar. That's when it came back to me.
Thirty years before, I had met a man I could never forget. When I turned
to a picture of Rebazar Tarzs in the ECK material, I said, "That's him!"
* * *
I was driving my cab on the night shift in Milwaukee. A call came over the
radio, and I said to myself, "I want that call!" But I was six or eight
miles away and figured I'd never make it in time. Still, I started driving
in that direction.
Thirty-five minutes passed and still no one took the call, so the
dispatcher gave it to me as soon as I came in. I will never forget the man
I picked up.
I drove up to the curb, got out, opened the back door, and asked the man
to get in. "No thanks," he said, "I'll sit in the front with you." When I
glanced up into his eyes, they seemed to look right through me.
We started out for our destination, the North Shore Station. As we drove,
he sat there and told me everything about myself, even my secret
prayers-things that no human being alive could know. I felt like someone
had poured hot water over me.
Before stepping out of the cab, he turned and said, "We will meet again."
This was Rebazar Tarzs.
A few weeks later, a friend and I had to make a rush trip to Toledo, Ohio,
through pouring rain. I was driving at speeds up to a hundred miles an
hour.
Just outside the suburbs of Milwaukee, a traffic light flashed red, and I
was forced to stop. Suddenly the car felt funny, and when the signal
changed, it wouldn't steer!
My friend and I gave a groan and climbed out into the rain to investigate.
Once glance told the story. The front wheels were sagging in different
directions, totally out of control. The tie-rod had come loose.
We stood quietly for a moment, thinking about what could have happened if
the rod had fallen off five minutes earlier. There would've been no way to
steer!
Before we could say anything, another driver got out to ask if he could
help. I explained the situation and said there was really nothing he could
do. The man didn't say anything before walking back to his car, so we
assumed he was leaving.
But after a moment the fellow returned, and we just stood there as he
knelt beside the helpless car. After a few minutes, the man straightened
up and said, "It's OK now!"
Naturally, we both bent down to look at the tie-rod as he jumped into his
car and sped away. It was fixed! Shock and amazement hit both of us at the
same time, and we turned to each other, saying, "Are you thinking what I'm
thinking?"
We drove the rest of the trip in silence. I kept muttering to myself that
I couldn't wait to get home, get down on my knees, and thank God for
saving my life. I felt that was the only way I had been spared.
As soon as I got home, I made good on my promise. I marched upstairs to my
room, shut the door, and got down to pray. I remember saying I wanted to
thank Him for saving my life and that I wanted proof that He heard me.
Well, I got my proof. While on my knees, It, the Spirit of God, took me
out of my body. No words can describe all the things that happened in that
room. When I got back into my body, I was hollering, "I believe, and I'll
never doubt again!"
Then a voice chuckled, "I told you we would meet again!"
Many times after that, that inner voice helped me through difficult
situations, letting me know, "I am always with you." Again, this was
Rebazar Tarzs.
* * *
Thirty years later, after recognizing the picture of Rebazar Tarzs in the
Eckankar material, I had another experience I'd like to share.
My car was hit while it was parked one night. I didn't even notice the
damage till the next day, when I parked in the same spot.
So I went down to the police station and made out all the routine reports.
As I walked back to my car, someone pulled into the police parking lot and
parked next to a truck. Darned if the inner voice didn't speak up and say,
"That truck hit your car."
So I turned around (I was through doubting this time!), went back in, and
told the sergeant. Naturally he exclaimed, "How would you know?"
"Well," I replied, "just check it out." So he did, and sure enough, it was
the truck.
Now you know why-after thirty years of miracles-I know ECK is for me!
A Meeting with Rebazar Tarzs
By Sri Harold Klemp
An ECK initiate wrote to me about her first meeting with Rebazar Tarzs,
which took place when she was in the first grade. She is well aware that
some people question the existence of the ECK Masters. They are quick to
assume that Rebazar Tarzs, Fubbi Quantz, and the others whose names appear
in the ECK works must have been figments of Paul Twitchell's imagination.
Yet, this woman was having experiences with these ECK Masters in the early
1930s, some thirty years before Paul brought out the teachings.
Her letter also helps to explain some of the nightmares that children and
adults have-and what they can do about them. People who ask me for help in
ridding themselves of nightmares do not realize that what the ECK Masters
want to do is to teach you how to face your own fears.
Nightmares are simply your own fears, manifested on the inner planes. As
long as you are overcome by fear, you are never really free; and you will
never have freedom until you learn how to face yourself.
The whole point of Eckankar is to teach the individual how to reach
spiritual freedom and to go back to God in this lifetime, by way of the
Light and Sound. In ECK this education is carried out through the Mahanta
and through the assistance of the ECK Masters.
Her letter read:
Dear Harji,
Every now and then we read or hear that someone is questioning the
existence of the Masters of the Vairagi. But Rebazar Tarzs started
teaching and guiding me when I was in the first grade. This was in the
early 1930s.
My first recall of him was a series of dreams that are still as vivid now
as when they were occurring. One night I found myself in a long
underground tunnel. I knew there were bodies buried in the walls. At
intervals there were candles burning in niches.
I heard growling and snarling behind me and turned to see a pack of
vicious-looking wolves coming toward me. I turned and ran.
Being chased by creatures is a nightmare many children have. They don't
realize, of course, where the creatures come from or what to do about it.
The letter goes on to say:
I ran until I was so tired, but they were still behind me. I called out
for help, and I heard, "Turn around and face them." I kept on running and
shortly came awake.
The next night I found myself in the same place, and the wolves were still
chasing me. After a while they sounded closer, and I turned to find they
had gained on me.
I called out for help and saw two men. One was dark and wore a
reddish-brown robe. (Later she identifies him as Rebazar Tarzs.) The other
was lighter in coloring, dressed in white with a white beard. (Though she
never identifies him, this was Fubbi Quantz.)
I ran toward them, but they receded in front of me. I called again for
help, and the dark man said, "Turn around and face them." I thought, I've
already looked at them twice-and kept on running. Soon I found myself
awake again.
This went on for two more nights. I didn't ask for any more help. I just
managed to stay ahead of the wolves.
On the fifth night, once again I found myself in the same situation, but
this time I passed one of the candles and noticed that it flickered. So
did the next one. I looked up to see that they were almost used up. Each
candle I passed was the same way.
I knew I could not negotiate the rough ground and the turns in the dark.
Once again I called for help, and once again the two men were there in the
distance. Once again the dark man with the beard repeated, "Turn around
and face them."
The thought that came was, If I'm going to die, I would rather do it in
the light than in the dark. I stopped and turned to face the wolves. I
looked at them for a few seconds, then they disappeared. The men who had
been in the distance were now standing beside me with their hands on my
shoulders, smiling at me. And then I awoke.
The next night, I found myself above ground, standing at the beginning of
a long lane with trees growing on both sides. At the end of the lane was a
big house with a door. The top of the door was stained glass. It had all
the symbols of the different religions. There was the six-pointed star,
the cross, the crescent moon, and others. There was a bright light shining
behind the door. I didn't know how, but I knew what each symbol meant.
I started to walk down the lane. A priest in a black cassock came out from
behind a tree and told me to turn back, the place was evil. As I stood
there, I heard another voice urge me on. I recognized the voice from the
tunnel with the wolves and turned. It was the dark, bearded man in the
maroon robe. Where I had felt fear and danger from the priest, I felt
strength, kindness, and love from the bearded man. I continued to walk
toward the door then found myself awake in bed.
The next night, I was on the lane where I had left off. Once again the
priest was trying to frighten me into turning back with threats of death
and hell. The man in the maroon robe urged me on with love and kindness.
My trust was with the bearded man with the beautiful eyes and the good
strength. I walked on.
This went on for two more days until, on the fifth day, I found myself at
the foot of the steps leading to the door. The priest said that if I went
up and opened the door, I would burn in hell forever. The bearded man
urged me to have no fear and to open the door.
I walked up the stairs and opened the door. Instead of a room on the other
side, there was brilliant, white, loving light and such beautiful music.
Once again, the bearded man was beside me with his hand on my shoulder. We
walked into the light, then I found myself awake in bed again.
Here she switches to her outer life:
Some weeks later, I started catechism class in preparation for first
communion. The nuns and the priest would often say that if someone was not
a Catholic, they could never go to heaven. Each time, I was reminded
inwardly of the door and what I had found behind it. That treasured friend
and teacher was there to help me in the inner world of dreams and on the
outer.
Then she refers to occasions where Rebazar Tarzs helped her in her outer
life. Some of them are quite dramatic, though she doesn't go into great
detail.
One day on the outer, he helped me save my parents from two men who had
come to kill them. Another time I had just learned to swim a little that
day. He talked me through so that I was able to save my cousin from
drowning.
It wasn't until my sophomore year in high school, 1940-41, that I finally
brought his name back from the dream state. It was Rebazar Tarzs.
I had been studying with both Jesus and Rebazar for many years. One day
Jesus said-three times-that I must learn to die and that I would be
studying with Rebazar.
Saint Paul referred to this in the Bible when he spoke of dying daily.
That means learning to rise above the human consciousness into the
spiritual consciousness. To do this, we must leave the concerns of our
daily life behind for a little while every day. There is no other way to
go into the high states of Spirit.
The letter goes on to say:
The next night I found myself with Rebazar again. He said that Jesus
taught up to this region, but it was time to go on into other regions.
Then he said, "Bless you in the name of the Sugmad," and kissed me over
the Spiritual Eye.
The next night I sought out Jesus and asked about what Rebazar had said.
He repeated the same thing, blessed me in the same fashion, and said, "Now
return to your Master." I did, and there I stayed.
In 1970, she finally read her first book by Paul Twitchell, ECKANKAR-The
Key to Secret Worlds. Not only was she surprised to run across the name
Rebazar Tarzs, but to learn that Paul had met him too.
She then expressed her gratitude to the Mahanta, Rebazar, Paul, and the
other Masters of the Vairagi. "My life has been so enriched by you all.
Thank you," she said in closing.
Michael, a young African of twenty-two, is another example of someone
meeting an ECK Master years before finally coming into Eckankar.
He'd suffered all kinds of financial setbacks. In addition, he also grappled
with a serious health problem: his eyesight was failing. His relatives
thought him a handsome and a clever young man, albeit poor. His father was
ill, and the family was poor like Michael. He'd developed a deep concern. He
did not wish to be a burden on others, so he offered up a prayer to God.
He pleaded, "God, please take me from this vale of tears. I have had as much
as I can take of this physical world." He repeated this prayer nightly.
Then one night he was lifted from his body, perhaps in a similar way as
Paul, the apostle, who said he had known a man caught up even unto the third
heaven. Michael's own Soul Travel experience began like this: He'd fallen
asleep on his bed and in the next moment awakened in a whole different
world. It was such a beautiful realm! The temperature felt just right, and
an enormous amount of light illuminated the entire landscape. Everything
shone with a refreshing goodness, alive with love and compassion.
"I like this place," he decided. "I'd like to stay."
Two men stepped from a nearby hut. One wore a thick black beard and would do
all the talking for both of them. Much later, long after this experience,
Michael would come to recognize him as the great ECK Master Rebazar Tarzs.
But for the moment, he had no inkling of this man's identity or even of the
location of this enchanted land.
The black-bearded one said, "Why are you here?"
Michael replied, "I'm here because I'm sick of earth and this is a nice
place. I think I'd like to stay here with you." He explained his prayer to
God and added, "I've been praying to God to get me away from earth, and it
looks as if it's worked. I think I'd like to stay."
Michael looked around at the sparkling blue sky. Then he noticed a light
shining from the little hut, a blue light. It appeared to originate from no
identifiable source. It rather seemed to flow from everywhere at once. Quite
unknown to him, it was the Light of God, often seen as the Blue Light of the
Mahanta.
Now the black-bearded one said, "You can't stay. You have to go back."
Michael balked. "No, I won't go back. I shall stay." He repeated all the
reasons for his unquenchable desire to remain in this heavenly world of love
and beauty.
However, the other said, "It's impossible. You haven't finished your mission
on earth."
"That may be, but I'm not going back."
Rebazar Tarzs came over and kindly took his hand. The next thing Michael
knew he was in his room again and awakening. He sat up in bed and exclaimed,
"What was that?"
It's a curious thing about people who enjoy an easy life, a good living with
everything handed to them without effort, sweat, or trouble. They often have
no longing for God or truth.
The blue light, which Michael reported, issues from the Mental Plane, St.
Paul's third heaven. The Spiritual Travelers of ECK know of different levels
in heaven. However, St. Paul's statement about that fact is the lone
biblical reference to it. This mention, of course, presupposed heavens one
and two. Who was to say there weren't four, five, or more?
Michael was puzzled by his out-of-body experience, so he approached the
parish priest with a swarm of questions like, What did his Soul-shaking
experience mean? Where was this splendid land of warmth and beauty?
While in that higher world, Rebazar Tarzs had asked him, "Do you know where
you are?"
The question suggested that the place did have a name to identify it. His
curiosity wished for an answer. The priest would surely know.
But the priest had no idea where the place was or even what Michael's
experience meant. Yet Michael gained hope from it, and he no longer asked
God to remove him from this world. Whatever his purpose might be here,
Michael realized it was not finished.
And so, he joined a company that for ages before him had engaged in the
self-same pursuit of God. In time he would find ECK books and begin to
satisfy that eternal longing.
In one such ECK book he would much later find a picture of Rebazar Tarzs.
And Michael would recognize him as the very man who'd met him outside the
little hut in those upper reaches of heaven.
It was then that Michael would begin to satisfy his long-standing desire to
learn who and what he was.
- Excerpted from Those Wonderful ECK Masters by Harold Klemp
Another dozen out of *hundreds*, maybe thousands, of such meetings with
Rebazar can be
read here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570432171
Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is not _all_ of these
hundreds of meetings _before_ and after becoming aware of Eckankar could be
delusions. One, or two, or even half a dozen, maybe. But the odds become
astronomical when it's hundreds of people.
Of course there are also a few that have admittedly deceived themselves.
There are many that try to restrict, via mental wrangling, such experience
to what is scientifically accepted as the "physical" world, what is written
down as history, or compared to other teachings. Yet the bottom line is that
it's one's own spiritual experience that matters. Relying on others
experiences pro or con, is what most people do. Eckankar teaches one on the
spiritual path is mandated to prove things for themselves through their own
personal experience.
For myself I've come to realize that not being able to prove something for
myself does not negate it. I also accept that each Soul is sovereign in the
experiences It needs and chooses to learn from in the human existence.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Etznab
Everybody is entitled to their own personal experiences.
Imagination included. However, as individuals, I seriously
doubt people haven't the liberty to look critically on what
are the personal experiences and beliefs of others. I don't
believe members of Eckankar, since it is a personal path,
have to automatically accept as being true what anybody
and everybody else says.
The ancient philosophers were openly critical and they
asked many questions in pursuit of wisdom. It was very
common and natural to do so.
Starting out this thread I asked some questions, but I
went further to illustrate reasons for putting these before
you. I mentioned the first (?) president of Eckankar was
on record showing that Paul Twitchell borrowed his books
on Radha Soami, he copied from books and didn't always
give credit to the source. That president, Dr. Bluth, was a
follower of Sawan Singh (for about 17 years? according to
someone who heard him speak on the subject) and I went
to show a quote from Path of The Masters (Sawan Singh
was the author's master) and one from Rebazar Tarzs. I
also stated the quote was a fraction of the material that
similarly exists, in so many words.
You see, I was not asking people to accept on my own
word the question of Who? or What? was Rebazar Tarzs
Really? I was asking the question and I submitted some
information on the topic. On another thread, if it wasn't on
this one, I gave a link to an online version of The Path of
The Masters book for people to check it themselves.
Should I blindly accept testimony of people, who I never
met, that Rebazar Tarzs is "real" based on what was their
own personal experiences? You know, I may have had my
own personal experiences with Rebazar Tarzs, too. Does
it mean that others need to make it literally true for them?
I would really like to know how many people in this group
have read The Path of the Masters? in full?
I would really like to know how many people in this group
have read Ford Johnson's Confessions of a God Seeker?
Because, those who have not read these books are, IMO,
doing the same things they accuse others of not doing. Be-
lieving in things not based on personal experience.
There is a difference between the pseudo-imaginary and
personally invented world according to one or more persons
and the historical real world that is based on true empirical,
credible and tested tangible evidence.
The Path of the Masters is not an imaginary item which
people have to accept on faith alone. It is a real black and
white book having been around since at least 1939. Now if
I cite that book for evidence and compare its contents with
what Rebazar Tarzs was recorded to have said decades
later, it is not an intangible, or imaginary idea that cannot
be checked and verified by anyone. Especially after I gave
the name of the two books.
I think that the questions I brought up here and tried to
explore further are in a different category than "He said,
She said, Rebazar Tarzs is real. I challenge anybody to go
and actually read for their self The Path of The Masters in
full. And if you're a long-time member of Eckankar who has
read many of the Eckankar books, I'd bet my bottom dollar
you would be shocked just how much of Eckankar dogma
existed in a book years before Eckankar was ever founded.
And to learn that so many of the same words, sentences
and paragraphs were attributed, by Eckankar, to Rebazar
Tarzs instead ... I don't see how anybody wouldn't go and
ask the same questions that begin this thread.
Etznab
Jasmyn
Whatever you think about the book The Far Country, if you personally
met Rebazar Tarzs, would it then matter about the book, or would you
presume Paul wrote the book in such a way as he did as a teaching tool
in order to pass along such deep and profound truths to his students.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and free to speak
it.
But one can't prove a negative such as Tianyue's story of someone who
first thought she met with Paul and then decided it was not Paul after
all. That may have meaning to that person, but others find meaning in
their own experiences. Just as you are free to question, others are
free to tell of their own and loved ones and friends experiences.
Some may be interested in pursuing your line of questions, others such
as my self may not.
Here's an interesting quote that has meaning for me:
From ASK THE MASTER Book 1, By Harold Klemp, pg 197:
[Q] I assume the personal dialogues in the ECK works were recorded
practically word for word. How do the Masters have such precise
recall?
Paul Twitchell wasn't an ECK Master yet when he had the experiences
recorded in several of the ECK works.
In general, however, the ECK Masters often speak to one with a highly
compact form of communication, much like telepathy. It is like a
computer program that compresses a document file for storage.
The chela must decompress the file. He tries to keep the intent of
the discourse as he converts it into everyday language. There is no
word-for-word utility program that will exactly translate an inner
conversation into outer words.
It is even harder than trying to keep the exact meaning of a message
in English that is translated into French, then from French into
Spanish. The several stages of translation can easily jumble the
original message by the time it finishes the loop.
---
Jasmyn
TianYue
Many people think they "know" when in fact they don't know. That is
the point. In Eckankar, believing "inner" experiences are absolutely
true if such experiences are supportive of Eckankar teachings is in
fact a deeply embedded belief system.
In other words, Eckists are first taught (indoctrinated) to believe
everything they dream or see inwardly is real (especially if it
confirms Eckankar), and then, not surprisingly, over time they begin
to confirm the teaching by proclaiming they "know" they had a real
experience with Rebazar, when in fact, dreams and inner experiences
are not very reliable.
Countless people, everyday all over the world, think THEIR experiences
are the real McCoy, and THEIR religion is the real one. I've witnessed
countless Eckists have a dream, and without any objectivity
whatsoever, accept the dream without question. Every time they recount
the experience, it becomes more and more real to them, and more vivid,
and more exaggerated, until it hardly resembles the original
experience. A dream is recounted until the fact it was a only dream is
left out of the description and forgotten.
This is rampant throughout the culture of Eckankar, and is mutually
reinforced within the membership as members retell to each other their
experiences, over an over, until a mindset is strongly developed in
which all experiences are immediately seized upon as absolutely real.
When the process is complete, no amount of evidence to the contrary
can penetrate the belief system, and such evidence becomes the enemy
that must be assailed, questioned, and undermined, if not completely
destroyed.
In the world of the Eckist, any inner experience becomes
indiscriminately more real than the ground they are standing on, which
creates a form of dissociation from their personal lives. At that
point, even if the real sky is blue, if their experience says it's
red, then it's red. No one can prove to them they are misled, because
in their view, it's really everyone else, the entire world who is
misled, and they see themselves as the only true guardians of reality.
This mindset is impervious to outside evidence and common sense. They
become trapped.
Tianyue
TianYue
Hey, I met Rebazar. In the flesh. As solid as a brick. I went around
telling everyone for a few decades about the event. But when the fog
of Eckankar cleared, I realized what really happened. You're free to
believe what you like. But there are thousands who have awakened from
the fog to realize they had been deceived, and left Eckankar for a
more satisfying life.
Tianyue
Etznab
>
> read more »
I think it would help to clarify what you mean in your
question by the word "met".
If I watch a television program, or read a book, and
then meet the character in my dreams does it mean
that I actually met the character? And what about if
the character was a fictional one?
Do you see what I mean?
I might say that I met everyone currently posting
on A.R.E. And - in a manner of speaking - one may
say this is true. But is it really?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say I met other
people's words? And then there is the question of
What people? You see, I might not have actually
seen any of the posters & so if I formed an image
of anyone (like say, for example, JR, based on his
profile image) is that a truly reliable image?
All I had / have of Rebazar Tarzs are so many
drawings that I have seen, along with the words
attributed to him. Now if I "meet" Rebazar Tarzs
on the "inner" or in my dreams, How do I know it
is not a fabricated image based on prior images?
& whether it's the "inner" body of a person living
on Earth?
See what I am saying? Where is the tangible
proof? Where is something tangible I can show
to another person in order to convince them, be-
yond a doubt, that Rebazar Tarzs is a real per-
son?
I can give images in the form of drawings and
I can give so many words and stories but, even
if I give recorded experiences of others, where is
the actual proof? Where is the real substance of
the person Rebazar Tarzs to prove to another -
beyond a reasonable doubt - that he is real?
The truth is I can imagine anything and then
go tell people what I imagined is real. But if I
want to convince people I am talking about a
real living person then shouldn't I have to give
more than a picture drawing? More than words
in a book (especially when many of the words
belong to some other person instead)? What,
with so many words in Julian Johnson's Path
of The Masters similar and identical to those
of Rebazar Tarzs, am I to say I met Rebazat
Tarzs in a book written in the 1930s? Maybe
I met the words of a 1930s author who some-
one - decades later - attributed the name of
Rebazar Tarzs?
A section from your quote read:
"The chela must decompress the file.He tries
to keep the intent of the discourse as he con-
verts it into everyday language. There is no
word-for-word utility program that will exactly
translate an inner conversation into outer words."
Umm ... Jasmyn? do you presume Harold
Klemp is suggesting all of Paul Twitchell's
instances of "Dialogues" with the "Masters"
were inner experiences?
That was not the way I read them!
It looks to me like someone is doing a
little bit of "spin", because does it matter
whether Paul was an Eck Master or not?
in order for us to comprehend what Paul
wrote about Eck Masters in his very own
words?
"[....] Among my numerous discourses
from many gurus in the flesh and those on
the inner planes are those taken down when
Sudar Singh appeared in my apartment in
New York City in his light body, although
his flesh self was six thousand miles away
in India. This is also true of Rebazar Tarzs,
a Tibetan monk, who appears quite frequently
in my home. Last fall he dictated a book-length
manuscript called 'The Far Country.' [....]"
[Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings
Volume 1, Paul Twitchell (Copyright 1975
by Gail T. Gross), p. 12]
[BTW, an earlier version of that quote has
the name Kirpal Singh (I believe) instead of
Sudar Singh. And I don't know that it even
mentioned Rebazar Tarzs at all.]
Dictated a book-length manuscript?
Doesn't Harold Klemp remember Paul and
Rebazar Tarzs sipping on buttered yak tea in
that hut far above the Himalayas? Was that
an inner experience?
Maybe? Maybe not?
In another place it looks like Paul is saying
that Rebazar Tarzs came to him!
"[....] Since this first meeting [summer 1951] with
Rebazar Tarzs it has been proved many times over,
especially when he appeared nightly for a period to
dictate a full manuscript called 'The Far Country', a
whole discourse on ECKANKAR, in my apartment
in San Francisco while his body was lying on a
crude bed in a hut high in the Hindu Kush mountains.
[....]" [my brackets]
[Based on: ECKANKAR, Compiled Writings Volume
1, Paul Twitchell - Copyright 1975 by Gail T. Gross,
p. 35]
Read the Eckankar books and take note of the
detail Paul Twitchell gives during his encounters
with Rebazar Tarzs. Even to the point of describ-
ing Rebazar emphasizing points with his finger,
what his eyes looked like, his facial features and
his breath. The way the weight of his body sinks
on the bed, etc. Were these inner experiences?
Paul Twitchell goes to the point of making his
encounters (some of them) sound like more than
"inner" experiences. And (IMO) he had to do so
because Rebazar Tarzs "HAD TO BE" a real live
living person in order to qualify as a "Living Eck
Master"! Otherwise, Paul Twitchell has nobody
- no "Living Eck Master" - to appoint him the next
in line! Sudar Singh was already dead before the
"God-Realization" experience and Paul's trips to
higher planes described in Dialogues With The
Master and The Tiger's Fang (1956-1957?). (If
even Sudar Singh was a real person.)
I meet a lot of characters on the inner and in
my dreams. I could write books about every-
thing I imagine is true. But that is different from
giving the characters real life living histories on
the physical plane and telling about how they
influenced Earth history when there is no trace
of any substantial evidence another person can
look at to prove that what I am saying is true.
Jasmyn wrote:
"Whatever you think about the book The Far
Country, if you personally met Rebazar Tarzs,
would it then matter about the book, or would
you presume Paul wrote the book in such a
way as he did as a teaching tool in order to
pass along such deep and profound truths to
his students."
I liked what you said about a book and a
teaching tool. However, copying & compiling
other people's works is not the same thing
as suggesting that Rebazar Tarzs told me to
do it. Is it? Can Rebazar Tarzs be both a real
living person and the compiled works / words
of other people as well?
Hey. Maybe I ban put that last sentence
on a piece of paper and then mail it in to the
Mystic World?
This is where I'm at. Can it be both? How
might that be possible? Any thoughts? Can
Rebazar Tarzs be both the dictator and the
words of other people (and words published
in books by other people) as well?
There is definitely a real possibility Paul
Twitchell DID COPY from The Path of the
Masters and attached the name of an Eck
Master for a source. This is as possible as
Rebazar Tarzs actually speaking the words
to Paul. If not moreso!
My question to you (and others) is:
CAN IT BE BOTH?
And how could it possibly be both?
I am open to suggestions.
Etznab
Etznab
Tianyue,
I think you should save a copy of that one.
It made some very good points (IMO) and it
articulated them very well.
Good subject matter too!
Etznab
Rich
I don't care to read the book. Poor poor Richard. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the
PotM has many similarities with The Far Country. You are having such a hard
time with this.
It's old news and same old questions you keep repeating. Take your own
advice and rely on your own experience, not the people online you keep
seeking agreement from about this. Consider: Over the years of you working
over this group with you 'disbelief' based on a lack of experience with RT,
that something is wrong about all this, that you haven't convinced anyone?
You seem to prefer Kent's experience, fine. He agrees with you. Believe that
Rebazar doesn't exist, and viola! He won't exist in your world.
Me, I prefer to stay open to the possibility that I may one day meet him in
the flesh. If I don't, it won't make even one small bid of difference. It
doesn't matter to me.
Etznab
You're a poor judge of character sometimes, Rich.
And underneath the facade of "Holier-Than-Thou", a
bit vindictive, too. Your blatant misrepresentation of
other people is insulting. To say the least.
Not having read the book, that doesn't make you
an experienced critic about the subject.
I think it makes you pre-judiced and rather biased.
What does your input amount to on this subject,
except your own personal imagination and feelings?
Sometimes those are authoritative, Not always.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> read more »
I had to check back to make sure that was actually true.
That you didn't read the book.
Rich, How can you come off the way you did about some-
thing you don't even fully know?
Years ago I would probably have held the same position,
or a similar position as you. I would not question the truth
about Rebazar Tarzs and I would denounce books written
by people who were not Eckists (even if one of them - Con-
fessions of a God Seeker - was by a former member).
I assume the book you don't care to read is The path of
The Masters. How about Confessions of a God Seeker by
Ford Johnson?
Years ago I remember being at an Eckankar seminar &
my peers all up in arms about Ford Johnson, asking me if
I was going to see Ford Johnson's talk? "Are you going to
Ford Johnson's talk? "Oh! You just gotta go listen to Ford
Johnson talk!" He was quite the rave, as I remember.
Years after Ford Johnson left Eckankar and I asked one
of my peers about the book, they said something like this:
I don't think I would want to read a book that was not writt-
en by an Eckist. The impression I got was that the person
was afraid of Ford Johnson and what he had to say. But if
he was an Eckist then that was OK.
I don't hold the same views about authors as others do,
but I think it helps to actually read their works instead of
forming a critique based on people's opinions. Especially
if the opinions are by critics who never read the works in
the first place. Or are afraid to read the works, period!
So considering the material on this thread and all my
references to The Path of the Masters, that you say "I
don't care to read the book." and then follow with your
"Poor, poor Richard" spiel, I am not surprised to hear it
coming from you.
If I was ignorant, I would probably hold the same, or
similar view.
Etznab
wernertrp
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Rebazar is the white mouse of Paul Twitchell in delirium tremens
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens
Jasmyn
Yes, it could be both.
Paul Twitchell had experiences with Rebazar Tarzs, just as others
have, too, think of Phil Morimitu talking and writing about that. And
I think of Fran Blackwell and others I have talked to personally about
their having that experience as well. Paul Twitchell was connected
with him within the context of his sojourns in other planes as well as
in the physical during which Paul might have been given quite similar
discourses by Rebazar Tarzs. And he might have felt it time efficient
to utilize some paragraphs from another book to illustrate those same
discourses and teachings. Didn't he actually tell Bluth something to
that effect. He did have a time crunch to deal with the small number
of years he knew he had to distribute vast amounts of materials. You
don't have to believe that, but I'm just saying what I think
presently.
Jasmyn
Jasmyn
That's nice, everyone should believe and do as they like, and
hopefully have a satisfying life if it's possible for them this go-
round. But no one should assume others have their same experience.
I don't know how I could have a more satisfying life. There is much
contact with Spirit/Mahanta. I'm very grateful and thankful everyday
for the presence and communication of Spirit, there is just this
constant communication with the Light and Sound current continually.
Sometimes when I am thinking about something the Mahanta lights up in
the room to answer. Maybe that's what it means the saying 'I am always
with you'.
You can debate about various masters, and proofs if you like. I just
know I couldn't do other than this right now. Eckankar for me has been
the facilitator, the motivator, the teachings that haved helped me.
But religious freedom is great, everyone should do as they like,
whatever works for them.
Jasmyn
Etznab
Jasmyn,
Yes, I've considered that it could be both. And in the
sense that "Spirit" can use words and memories when
communicating to / with the awareness of lower bodies.
It was important - in some of Paul Twitchell's earlier
writings - the forming of an ideal. Kirpal Singh & other
past masters might have prevented that - according to
the direction Paul envisioned Eckankar going. Or so I
suppose.
I'm just saying what I think, too.
It's not a problem for me, and even for people who
leave the formal organization of Eckankar to use the
image of Rebazar Tarzs as an ideal through which
"Spirit", or what we might call "ECK", can work. But
it only appears to present a problem when the ideal
is written up in a way that it has many different kinds
of physical history and people have to wonder what
is fact and what is fiction.
I'd just like to know for sure about that physical
side of the history written up for Rebazar Tarzs. If
some of it was "artistic license" - because I'd rather
work with "Spirit" than I would a historical myth that
could be strewn with a million different forms of per-
sonal imaginations. Not all of which can be literally
"historically" true. Maybe on the Astral Plane, but
not on Earth.
You know, it's not uncommon (especially among
New Age religions) to find people way off the mark
concerning actual history. Social factors can lead
to the influencing of personal ideals, and that is just
so much where imagination is concerned. However,
there has to be an anchor in truth when referencing
the history of another person and events in their own
lives. Otherwise it's like those news programs and
the politicians each spinning stories about people in
a spirit of competition.
I read the news & many other sources of history
daily. I watch the television and Internet and are
aware of the goings on generally. I also watch the
results of imagined, pseudo stories & propaganda.
How it affects people's lives and the world when un-
truths are taken literally by fervent believers. I think
the future and destiny of human relations will survive
along a quest for truth. Otherewise the world is just
doomed to reap its own wanton karma.
Etznab
Doug
I've seen this letter from Dr. Bluth before. There are a few problems
with it.
First, the whole issue of Paul not wanting to lose Gail and going
after a commercial venture for her sake is a strange statement. Both
Gail and Paul openly stated that she encouraged him to do something
with his writings. He had many books written and sitting in his files,
when he first met her. He had been writing to her his famous "letters
to Gail" for years, before they were married.
And then for years after he started Eckankar, he worked at writing the
discourses and giving talks, before publishing any of the books.
During this whole time, Gail held down a job rather than finishing the
college degree she was after, until Paul's work could pay enough for
her to go back to school.
So, if Gail, was ready to leave Paul, why was she willing to put up
with years of her paying the bills, when all she wanted was some
money? She could have found a much faster way to a rich husband than
that. Why would she have even married someone like Paul, who clearly
did not care about money, if what she wanted was wealth?
If Paul did anything on a commercial basis for Gail, it was helping
her start Sunasu Vitamins, so that she had something she could manage
and run on her own. But I think that was more for the sake of her
independence and her growth than anything.
But any way you slice it, none of this had anything to do with Paul's
copying. Paul started copying when he started as a journalist. In the
field of journalism at that time, copying was considered proper and
was encouraged. This might surprise us today, but it was true back
then. I saw this back in his writings in the 1940's, over 20 years
before he met Gail. So, Paul didn't start copying to make Gail rich.
Secondly, Dr. Bluth may have loaned Paul his Radhasoami books, but
this explains nothing about The Far Country, since Paul had written
his book years before Dr. Bluth met him. The Far Country was written
in 1963-1964. Dr. Bluth didn't meet Paul until 1966 or 1967.
So, we can see that Dr. Bluth is not speaking from facts he knows
here, but simply from the conclusions that he jumped to.
Lastly, you need to put everything he says in perspective here. Dr.
Bluth thought he was going to be Paul's successor. He left Eckankar
when Darwin was announced as the Master. Until that time he said only
the nicest things about Paul and Gail. But he blamed Gail for not
choosing him.
Unfortunately, the only thing in his letter that might add something
to the discussion is Paul's comment when Dr. Bluth asked him about the
copying. This could very well have been Paul's response, and certainly
seems consistent with Paul's attitudes about it.
But this doesn't help in your search for Rebazar.
Doug.
TianYue
Phil Morimitsu originally admitted that lots of his experiences were
very humble and subtle and even just impressions, and he wasn't sure
about them until Harold initially encouraged him and strongly pushed
him to write them out and have confidence in them. This is how it
works in Eckankar. Once you write out a subtle experience, it isn't so
subtle once on the written page. It is very easy to exaggerate or even
self induce through auto suggestion spiritual experiences, and thus
the world is full of people who are deluded into thinking their
various imaginings are the real deal. A blend of strong desire,
encouragement and exploitation from a charismatic figure, a few inner
imaginings, dreams, and impressions, along with the glow of celebrity
and fame that comes with it, is all it takes to produce another
visionary.
As to PT plagiarizing in order to save time, I would rather that he
would have written just one stupendously great classic, than write a
bunch of stolen material with his name on it. For example, the Tao Te
Ching (daodejing in the much preferred pinyin) has been translated
into more languages than any book except the Bible, and is over 2.6
thousand years old, and yet it is very brief. One doesn't need to
steal others works to produce a highly acclaimed classic if one truly
is a great master. One book of high quality is better than a bushel of
tawdry, forgettable writing. Interesting that Klemp has discontinued
so many of Paul's writings.
Tianyue
TianYue
Prove, with evidence, that plagiary among journalists was encouraged.
You've often repeated this, but I've not seen the evidence.
I can understand why news reporters or basic news journalists might
borrow each others news stories, because of the highly competitive
market of news reporting, but in the finer essays of journalists,
where awards are handed out for high caliber writing, I don't believe
at all your assertion that acceptance and encouragement of plagiary
was tolerated. I suspect you've misinterpreted something you read,
which you tend to do quite often if it suits your needs.
But even if this is true, journalism is a far different field than
writing works under the guise of the world's highest spiritual master.
One would think the master of the universe would have no need to
plagiarize.
Can you back up the claim with evidence? Not just someones opinion, or
some self described plagiarism expert (which wouldn't be real
evidence), but real documentation.
Tianyue
Doug
Tianyue,
I agree with what you said about Phil Morimitsu. I think he was
reticent at first about writing about his inner experiences and
impressions. I think he is also somewhat uncomfortable about the way
that people have taken his writings as if they were factual literal
experiences, when they are spiritual and he simply was trying to
translate inner impressions, as you put it, into stories for print.
That's one of the things I like about Phil, his honesty about this.
But it isn't always easy talking about this with ECKists, who can
sometimes take it too literally.
I've wondered if this was why Phil hasn't written any more books.
This is actually a good example to bring up in this discussion,
because Phil wasn't trying to focus on literally describing an
encounter as if it were a physical experience. He was writing a
spiritual story from inner impressions filled with lessons and the
impact of Spirit on his life.
The problem here is what happens when people try to take this too
literally. That's also the concern of taking Paul's writings and
trying to treat them as history books, when they are poetry.
I found your comparison to the Tao Te Ching somewhat humorous. Are you
suggesting that it was completely original and none of what is in that
manuscript had been said or taught before it was put down in that
book? Really?
That would certainly make it at odds with all the other famous books
written in those days. Things were generally committed to writing,
back then, only after it was well known and widely taught. Original
works of writing were almost non existent. Publishing was not a big
business then.
Also, from what I've read of those who have academically studied the
Tao Te Ching, they don't believe it is the work of one author, but
multiple writers. And it was not written at one period of time, but
appears to have been developed over many decades and perhaps even
centuries. The authors, as was custom in those days, did not attach
their names to their contributions, since what they were recording was
about the spiritual teaching and truth, not about themselves.
I do think that Paul wrote a number of amazing books. Whether they
last down through history, however, will be more determined by how
successful the organization of Eckankar is. The reason the Tao Te
Ching has survived and is so well know has a lot to do with the
success of the Taoists and their influence in China as a political
force.
It is hard to say how many great teachings have been lost because
popularity went a different direction. The story of Apolonius of Tyana
is a good example. He was more popular than Jesus in their lifetimes
(they were contemporaries), but popular favor changed and Apolonius
was largely forgotten. Fortunately some of the writings about him were
uncovered and can now be read.
Doug.
Etznab
Doug,
Thanks for clarifying that according to what you know.
My only comment is that The Far Country wasn't pub-
lished until years later? Right? So Paul still had time to
copy from Bluth's Rada Soami books if he wanted.
Of course, I know the story about Bluth and how he
suddenly turned vindictive. It's a little overboard I admit.
Afterall, Paul could have gone and got his own Radha
Soami books. It would be interesting to check on the
Letters to Gail and see if the subject of Radha Soami,
Sawan Singh or Kirpal Singh, etc., is mentioned there.
Bluth might have just been throwing dirt at Paul T.
after the fact. Because, my God, being a follower of
Sawan Singh for 17 years himself, wouldn't the pres-
ident of Eckankar know from the very beginning the
books had copied material? Why the hell didn't he
do, or say anything about it then? Because he was
hoping to be the Master some day? and that could
ultimately have worked against him?
This is what some people do when you piss them
off enough, isn't it? They throw the dirt on you that
they know personally. And they can do it before a
large audience for greater effect. I see it all the time
in politics. It's not something new. Children do this,
and so do teens. Attacking a person's credibility &
character by attacking the person themself. As if a
person needs to be a total saint before they amount
to anything good. Before they can be trusted and
given due respect. If that were the case then there
would probably be no governments because every-
body has human flaws. And what are not so much
flaws for one person, they are considered the most
unpardonable sins by others. In the world of power
politics people forget their own humanity. IMO.
Etznab
TianYue
Thanks for admitting what you did about Phil Morimitsu. I agree that
people take things too literally. It is all too easy to create a
grandiose myth out of something of much humbler origin. But I also do
believe this could have been avoided with Phil's books, and that Klemp
very likely wanted the books to be a bit more vivid and colorful than,
perhaps, Phil intended them to be. Klemp knew exactly what he was
doing in publishing those books. And it is obvious, in my view, from
my experience, that when a person sits down to write out spiritual
experiences, they take on much more drama for the reader than the
writer actually experienced. This tendency can be, and is, exploited
by spiritual writers.
Now, with that concept having been explained, think of PT's works,
HK's works, and those of other spiritual writers. I think any
spiritual writer quickly learns how easy it is to simply write out an
experience and sit back to witness readers taking it to be much more
intense and grandiose, and the writer soon finds what a benefit that
can be to getting the writings widely read.
And this can explain what occurs with the "spiritual experiences" that
people have when they recount them to others: the experiences become
more and more vivid and exaggerated with each telling.
As to the Daodejing (I like the better pinyin spelling), you are
correct that some scholars assume that the classic was a compilation
over centuries, but other scholars strongly disagree. Here's a Wiki
excerpt that touches on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching
"Generations of scholars have debated the historicity of Laozi and the
dating of the Tao Te Ching. Linguistic studies of the text's
vocabulary and rhyme scheme point to a date of composition after the
Shi Jing yet before the Zhuangzi — around the late 4th or early 3rd
centuries BC. Legends claim variously that Laozi was "born old"; that
he lived for 996 years, with twelve previous incarnations starting
around the time of the Three Sovereigns before the thirteen as Laozi.
Some Western scholars have expressed doubts over Laozi's historical
existence, claiming that the Tao Te Ching is actually a collection of
the work of various authors. By contrast, Chinese scholars hold that
it would be inconceivable within the context of ancient Chinese
culture for Sima Qian the historian to have engaged in confabulation.
Chinese scholars by and large accept Laozi as a historical figure,
while dismissing exaggerated folkloric claims as superstitious
legend."
By the way, in ancient China, some authors deliberately assigned the
authorship of their original works not to themselves, but entirely to
a famous personage, because they wanted the book to be widely read.
It was a quicker way to get their works out in the world. They were
the opposite of PT, who assigned his name to others' writings.
Anyway, the Daodejing is recognized as a timeless classic, and it is
apparently even more revered outside of China. I don't agree that it's
success is due merely to the success of Daoism in Chinese politics.
The book is a masterpiece of profound wisdom. As I understand, another
Daoist book that is more widely read and respected in China is the
Chuang Tzu (pinyin: zhuang zi), which is a lengthier book by the
author, Chuang Tzu (although the later chapters were written by
others).
But you missed my point, although I'm glad you were amused. My point
is it is better to spend time writing one timeless masterpiece that is
read all over the world than to write volumes of works that end up not
winning a wide audience due to criticisms. Most people in the world
have never read an Eckankar book, much less heard of Eckankar, despite
the presence of 3 Mahantas openly teaching and publishing countless
works. Bookstores that once had a few Eck books now seem to have
discontinued them. PT should have spent his time pouring his energy
into one or two priceless works, rather than churning out dozens. One
would have thought a master would have known he had limited time, and
would have concentrated on creating a timeless classic that would have
heralded to the world the presence of the Mahanta. And one would think
a master of the universe of such grandiosity and magnitude would have
little trouble coming up with new material that would blow the minds
of contemporary people.
Well, this is my opinion. Others may differ.
Tianyue
Rich
> You're a poor judge of character sometimes, Rich.
> And underneath the facade of "Holier-Than-Thou", a
> bit vindictive, too. Your blatant misrepresentation of
> other people is insulting. To say the least.
Huh? You completely misunderstood me. I have sympathy for you.
Or are you claiming you are _not_ having a hard time resolving this issue?
Come on... haven't you not brought up this topic in dozens and dozens of
threads?
Why do you imagine that we all don't know that there are many similarities?
Has any Eckist here converted to your thinking about this?
Haven't you really gone round and round about searching and presenting
reasons for disbelief about RT?
Surely you won't deny these?
Are you not asking for experience of others that agree with you, while
rejecting those experiences of those that have met the man?
I was calling it as I see it. How you arrived at holier than thou vindictive
insults surprised me. Was that just a knee-jerk reaction denial? If you
weren't still struggling with this issue you wouldn't keep trying and
failing over and over again to get an answer from others here "whether
Rebazar Tarzs was a real living person".
You ask again, "What is Eckankar's current position about Rebazar Tarzs."
I've answered that the last two times you gone into this, and supplied
quotes. Did you really forget? Is this just a memory issue with you?
I know my memory needs a lot of refreshing.
I'll tell you this. It is a basic logical fallacy to use a small percentage
of what Paul wrote about his experiences of Rebazar that can be found in
other works, as supposed "evidence" against him being a real person. What
else do you have? The words and experience of those that left Eckankar.
What else?
> Not having read the book, that doesn't make you
> an experienced critic about the subject.
The Subject of Rebazar? No I never claimed to be. Are you claiming to be?
The PotM isn't evidence for or against the existence of RT. It's evidence
that Paul used others writings. zzzzzzzz....
> I think it makes you pre-judiced and rather biased.
Absolutely. As I said at the end I prefer to stay open minded. I consciously
chose to not belabor negative possibilities. Just like our brains, I see
reality as plastic, mostly fluid. That's why I see "true empirical, credible
and tested tangible evidence" as a limited form of perception.
> What does your input amount to on this subject,
> except your own personal imagination and feelings?
More than you know. Imagination, no. Feelings, yes. As I said I feel for
your plight on this dilemma. I've read and engaged you in your many many
posts about this. If I'm wrong please answer the questions above directly
and explain my mistakes. If you don't I will be left with my observations as
they are. It's disappointing that I've asked such direct questions before
and you avoid them. You speak above about others being in denial...
> Sometimes those are authoritative, Not always.
You imagine history to be authorative. What facts do you have that RT
doesn't exist? That's your theme. When you get some we'll be all ears. Until
then you'll likely get the same responses you've been getting. I'm not an
authority except on my own experience and perceptions.
BTW, I missed the online link to the PotM. Please share it again. I would
like to have it.
Etznab
The Path Of The Masters link is here on one
of the threads.
Etznab
Jasmyn
Some have said The Tao Te Ching could be a compilation (?).
I couldn't say what Paul's motivations were, but I was glad to have
the book to read.
I'm not sure I would agree about Morimitsu, I heard another person
claim that in here long ago; perhaps that's a misinterpretation of
what he said in the Introduction? Here's what he says in the
Introduction of In the Company of ECK Masters:
"In part, this book came into being as a result of a lot of doubts I'd
had. I had inner experiences with some of the ECK Masters, but the
human consciousness had nagging doubts as to the reality of these
experiences. I wanted to know what was real, and what was just my
imaginings. It was by the grace of the Mahanta that I was introduced
to a number of members of the Ancient Order of the Vairagi Adepts, so
that I could have the opportunity to make up my own mind as to the
reality of the line of ECK Masters.
I'm indebted to the writings of Sri Paul Twitchell, which give so much
information on the members of the Order of the Vairagi (.........) I'm
also indebted to the writings of Sri Harold Klemp, the Mahanta, the
Living ECK Master; but above all, I'm thankful for the patience,
guidance, and deep love of the Mahanta, Wah Z, without whose loving
care the experiences in this book couldn't have happened.
The Masters often spoke directly to the heart, without the use of
words. These feeble attempts of mine to reduce the grand reach of
these sacred, spiritual communications to words is limited by my
understanding and state of consciousness. They may have said more,
but the words recorded are what I could understand, and are certainly
not complete, in any sense. But the heart of their message is here,
and for this reason I thought it more important to record these inner
conversations than neglect to do so. It would be good, and better by
far, for the reader to exert himself and learn the self-discipline
that would let him meet these great ECK Masters for himself. Then my
translation would be unnecessary.
Looking back, the one thing that remained constant in these meetings
was that my preconceived notions of what was going to take place were
always wrong. Oftentimes, the Mahanta would give me a hint that I was
going to meet one of the ECK Masters. I'd have it in my head what the
experience would be like, and then it would be really different. It
taught me three things: (1) That the world of outer expectations, as
well as appearances, is totally illusory, (2) to trust absolutely in
the Mahanta, and (3) that no matter how much proof a man has about
anything, it won't become a reality until he knows it to be true in
his heart, by his own experience. "
---
Jasmyn
Jasmyn
>
> Doug.
Hmm, I think a few words if not said in quite the exact spirit of what
he would want to say could be misleading, on such an important
subject, is it okay to speak for another living person?
In the Introduction Morimitsu says that "it was by the grace of the
Mahanta that I was introduced to a number of members of the Ancient
Order of the Vairagi Adepts...." and "The Masters often spoke
directly to the heart, without the use of words. These feeble
attempts of mine to reduce the grand reach of these sacred, spiritual
communications to words is limited by my understanding and state of
consciousness....."
As you write about it, Doug, you left out any word about a Master,
you're only saying these were from inner impressions...which could be
misleading...if Morimitsu for instance was having inner experiences
with Masters and then translating them into an outer physical story (I
wouldn't know that as the case or not, btw)...but I think if that were
the case you risk mislabeling his experiences by attempting to speak
for him in such a way. And that may not be the case at all, it might
be something totallly different. That's the point. There's only one
person who should clear that up. Unless he's asked you to speak up
for him.
Please excuse my honesty here. :)
Jasmyn
Doug
Tianyue,
If you read my book, you would see the evidence that I listed there.
It included a quote from Phillip Meyer, who held the Knight Chair in
Journalism at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He said:
"From 1927, when it first adopted a code of ethics, until 1984,
the Society of Professional journalists had no written rule against
plagiarism. C.D MacDougall, whose 1938 book Interpretative Reporting
was once the standard text, advised concealing the source of rewritten
material in order to make it seem more original. Newspapers don't
steal important stories without verifying, he said, but they "do
borrow for rewriting purposes and often without waiting to verify
minor items.""
I found this everywhere when going through the old newspapers while
researching Paul's early life. In fact, a news story about Paul's
death that ran in Kentucky, was taken word for word from a story that
ran in Los Angeles, without any credit to its source.
I also went into an historical study of plagiarism in my book, and
discussed many of the controversies about it in education lately. I
include lots of quotes from the foremost texts on the subject of
plagiarism.
Today, journalism treats plagiarism in a variety of ways. Some writers
are fired on the spot if it is discovered. Others are not, and may at
most receive a reprimand. In general, however, it is considered wrong.
But back in Paul's day, it was generally encouraged and considered
common practice. Not in all cases, however.
Where plagiarism has always been held up high has been the world of
academia, where it is more important to know who said what than what
was actually said, and in the world of literature, where writing is
valued as a art form and originally is more important than anything
else.
The field of religion, however, has had a very long history about the
copying and reusing of teachings, because the focus is on truth and
not who said what.
I covered all this with quotes and historical references, and a lot
more in my book, if you are interested.
Doug.
Doug
Etznab,
Your question about whether Paul could have changed his book after he
read the Radhasoami books was something I considered as well. However,
seeing how much of the material in The Far Country has similarities
with The Path of The Masters, this would mean Paul would have had to
completely rewrite the book. Plus, Paul was studying Radhasoami in
1955 and The Path of The Masters was the most popular book in English
from the Beas group, so I can't imagine that Paul never read this
until he met Dr. Bluth. It makes no sense.
Also, Paul did run quotes from The Far Country in the book, In My Soul
I Am Free, which was published in 1968. I believe Paul had met Dr.
Bluth shortly before when Brad Steiger started compiling this book,
but probably not much before.
So, although I did try to imagine the possibility, it just comes up
looking so improbable that I can't picture Paul rewriting The Far
Country years later because of a book he borrowed from Dr. Bluth.
I don't think Dr. Bluth was the first one to ask Paul about the
copying. Paul was very approachable and I know Millie Moore said that
she was aware of it long before David Lane said anything about it, but
it just didn't matter to her. There were also plenty of other early
students of Eckankar who came from Radhasoami, and they would have
recognized the similarities. Charan Singh was even asked about it and
said that if Paul was teaching about the path to God that was what
mattered, or something to that effect.
Doug.
Doug
Jasmyn,
You never need to excuse your honesty. It is always appreciated.
I'm not sure we have a disagreement here. But let me ask a few
questions.
You have pointed to two specific quotes from Phil's introduction. One
gives credit to the Mahanta and the other to the ECK Masters. Do you
think that he means that the Mahanta or the ECK Masters gave him words
or instructions physically? Is that what you mean?
I don't think you meant that, but if you did, then we might be on
different wavelengths here.
Nothing in what I said is at odds with what you wrote, if you think as
I do that Phil is describing here the inner benefits he gained from
the Mahanta and the ECK Masters. I do believe that Phil had inner
experiences and I do get the sense of the ECK Masters coming through
in his writings. I also think that Phil does try to explain his
experiences as inner experiences. That's what they are. They are
spiritual experiences. Translating those into writing is an art form.
So, what he did was take these inner impressions and put them into
writing as stories that carried the lessons and awareness that he
gained. And I think he did a great job.
I've written stories exactly like this.
You are right that it would not be fair for me to speak for Phil. I
didn't think I was. But if it isn't clear, let me say it clearly here
that everything I share here is my own perspective and view. I do not
speak for anyone else.
If you think I've missed something, let me know. Honesty is always
appreciated.
Thanks.
Doug.
Rich
Thanks for what I already knew...:-/ You don't have the link any more? What
search criteria would you suggest I use? You don't want me to even see the
book now? You were insisting I needed to read it. I din't know it was
online.
As these have ended before, I take a bunch of time to answer you, and you
bail out to avoid honest direct questions with honest answers. Why is that?
Rich
I guess you didn't notice that I wasn't really talking about the book? All I
wrote was it "has many similarities with The Far Country". That is
*agreeing* with you.
I was again addressing your fixation on the issue of RT existence. Did you
really miss that?
>
> Years ago I would probably have held the same position,
> or a similar position as you. I would not question the truth
> about Rebazar Tarzs and I would denounce books written
> by people who were not Eckists (even if one of them - Con-
> fessions of a God Seeker - was by a former member).
The problem with this is that you are entirely wrong about my so called
position(s). Perhaps you need to read more closely what I write. As I wrote,
those are old news. Been there done that. My point was that you appear
stuck there.
> I assume the book you don't care to read is The path of
> The Masters. How about Confessions of a God Seeker by
> Ford Johnson?
What am I going to learn from the PotM? That there are a lot of similarities
and even word for word passages in The Far Country? Duh! I documented every
one that was was found over a period of several years. That was years ago.
You know that. Why feign ignorance?
> Years ago I remember being at an Eckankar seminar &
> my peers all up in arms about Ford Johnson, asking me if
> I was going to see Ford Johnson's talk? "Are you going to
> Ford Johnson's talk? "Oh! You just gotta go listen to Ford
> Johnson talk!" He was quite the rave, as I remember.
To tell you the truth, I heard him speak, maybe more than once, and found
him... OK, nothing special. I say that because when his book came out I had
to see his picture to even remember that I had heard him speak. When it
comes to spiritual juice, the mental dazzle doesn't necessarily impress me.
> Years after Ford Johnson left Eckankar and I asked one
> of my peers about the book, they said something like this:
> I don't think I would want to read a book that was not writt-
> en by an Eckist. The impression I got was that the person
> was afraid of Ford Johnson and what he had to say. But if
> he was an Eckist then that was OK.
So what? Did that person represent _all_ Eckists? That certainly didn't
represent me. I got copy right away and read it. What's that got to do with
your obsession about RT?
> I don't hold the same views about authors as others do,
> but I think it helps to actually read their works instead of
> forming a critique based on people's opinions. Especially
> if the opinions are by critics who never read the works in
> the first place. Or are afraid to read the works, period!
I agree. It's not always necessary, but best to have first hand experience.
> So considering the material on this thread and all my
> references to The Path of the Masters, that you say "I
> don't care to read the book." and then follow with your
> "Poor, poor Richard" spiel, I am not surprised to hear it
> coming from you.
Get a grip Richard. You are _way_ off track. Check your own Subject man.
What does that book have to do with your ongoing battle with yourself about
"Who? or What? is Rebazar Tarzs Really?"
> If I was ignorant, I would probably hold the same, or
> similar view.
Why do you avoid what I'm trying to tell you? You are defending against an
argument that I didn't make. The book proves nothing about Rebazar. Are you
really thinking that is evidence that supports your disbelief? If so, show
me a quote from that book that I haven't seen, that indicates RT doesn't
exist. All your arguments about this issue are all like this. Logical
fallacies.
If you don't want to believe that RT exists that's fine with me. I'd even
go so far as to say I think it's fine with everyone here. So what's the
point of showing us this over and over and over again? Seriously, answer
just this one question. What are you trying to accomplish here?
Jasmyn
Kinpa
here is a link to the internet archives, where tPOTM is uploaded to be
read for free, as is ford johnson's book, should you care to read it
lol
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=eckankar AND mediatype%3Atexts
here is the direct link for POTM
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePathOfTheMasters
Rich
> Rich, here's the link he posted before:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/ThePathOfTheMasters
Thank you Jasmyn
Etznab
Did your sources say anything about the use of
"artistic license"? or attribution of words to other
names from the ones who authored and published
them? I mean, like assigning plagiarized material to
"Godmen"? or "Masters" from a particular religious
lineaqe?
Etznab
Etznab
It's very likely Paul encountered the book(s) from
Radha Soami beore Bluth. I agree.
"Charan Singh was even asked about it and said
that if Paul was teaching about the path to God
that was what mattered, or something to that
effect."
Have you considered the state(s) of conscious-
ness between younger vs. older initiates? How it
would be new information for many Eckists to
see Eckankar teachings and quotes in The Path
Of The Masters? Especially ones they previously
knew as coming from Rebazar Tarzs only?
I knew nothing about Radha Soami & the book
Path Of The Masters. I was largely unaware for a
good number of years. Then one day I read a long
quote from The Path Of The Masters featured in a
book by Ford Johnson. One I previously had known
to be a quote by Rebazar Tarzs. Do you know how
I felt? Do you know how others might feel? Ones
who are not prepared to meet such a reality for the
simple reason it is new to them?
Not everybody was around Eckankar in the 60s.
Later on, years later after I acquired the stamina
to pursue this line of research, I told myself that I
wanted to get The Path Of The Masters and see
the rest of it myself. I did.
Granted, all of this was going on at a time when
the Internet had copious amounts of information on
the subject. I stepped into that, too.
This was my experience, Doug. I'd say it was
not the same as older initiates who were privy to
the similarity between Eckankar & Rada Soami
illustrations.
Sorry to make you a sounding board on this,
Doug. I just wanted to share my experience &
to point out that others are probably still not
aware of the plagiarism (etc.) topic. What has
Eckankar done to prepare younger initiates who
meet the same quotes they heard from Rebazar
Tarzs appearing in a book written decades before
the founding of Eckankar? And written by some-
one besides Paul Twitchell?
See where I'm coming from? I know what was
my experience. One I would rather people be pre-
pared for. Because, in my own case, it was a
whole lot of years before I came across this
material in Path Of The Masters and the infor-
mation that has come out through yours and
David Lanes debates, etc.
It was the time span that made it so different!
Different from those older initiates who already
knew.
Your online book helped to prepare me some.
And I thanked you for that some years ago. The
other books were helpful, too. Thanks for them
as well.
Etznab
Etznab
Rich,
I was away from home for almost all of the day
yesterday and I didn't get home until late at night.
All I had were a few brief moments in the morning
and I recalled posting that link on A.R.E. All you
had to do is a keyword search and check posts
for the last few days.
It was that you didn't read the book. That was
something I emphasized. Did I insist you read it?
It was your name that came up some years
ago (as I recall) stating how the plagiarism only
amounted to about ... what was it? about 2%?
Didn't you do a study, or something?
Frankly I was floored to learn you hadn't read
the book! That you had no desire to!
This is not insisting that you read it. That is
your choice. It might be helpful, though, in the
future if we were on the same page. That is all
I'm saying (in so many words).
Etznab
Doug
Yes, this is also quite common in religious texts.
The sermon on the mount, for example, is credited to Jesus in The
Bible, but many of these sayings came from previous teachers. There
are apparently a lot of people with extra time on their hands who
enjoy tracking this stuff down. <G>
Take Plato's works, where he claims what Socrates said, but in many
cases he is putting his own words into the mouth of Socrates
A lot of the Gnostic Gospels were credited to Jesus or to his
disciples, but were not written by any of them. All kinds of things
were assigned to them that came from elsewhere.
If you try to fit this into the mold of literature it would seem
unethical, but when you stop to see that people are trying to bring
out the spiritual truth in their time with what is appropriate for
their culture, in a way that people can relate to, then how else can
you do this correctly, but to draw on things that resonate with the
consciousness? You have to refer to the things that are in people's
culture. That means copying and drawing on the creations of others.
But you aren't doing that to sell those creations, but to use them as
sparks and springboards into the whole of truth.
While we like to think of ourselves as the most open minded culture
the world has ever known, in fact we have become quite closed minded
in many ways, being unable to see things from any other way than our
own worldview. The study of plagiarism is a great example, since it
shows how difficult it is for people to see beyond their cultural
training to relate to other times where the culture was different.
Doug.
Doug
Etznab,
That's exactly one of the reasons I felt it was time to write my book,
and that this should be a more open discussion and not to take people
by surprise.
It is the shock of realizing that the pictures we had formed were
wrong, and that we've now learned something that changes how we
picture things today. But this doesn't make it a bad experience. It is
only a bad experience if we run away from truth and don't learn from
it.
But I believe a lot of what makes it a negative experience for many is
the poison that is slipped into the drink at the same time: Meaning
all the suggestions that there is something seriously wrong, that this
is a big fraud and deception, that Paul was intentionally hoodwinking
people and covering up the truth - and all that kind of stuff, which
is not about Paul at all, but about people's own negative feelings
towards him.
I've met people who have run across many different quotes that showed
Paul had copied. I've talked to at least a dozen people who have run
into this on their own. So, no one was slipping anything into their
drink. They discovered it naturally and accidentally. They just wanted
to let someone know and to talk about it. Most of them found it
interesting and actually enjoyed running into the books, because it
was like finding a "Paul was here" bookmark. If they had a concern
about it, it wasn't a big one, but more that it made them wonder.
This is completely different from people who I've talked to who ran
into this with all the poison, making them feel embarrassed to believe
in something and to have been taken for a fool.
So, when you talk about what the experience was like, I ask how much
of that come from all the surrounding stuff that was slipped into the
drink with the information?
Doug.
TianYue
You’ve misinterpreted the significance of Meyer’s having reported that
a journalism textbook from 1938 condoned plagiarism in the field of
news journalism. In fact, you’ve taken one short article by one person
and posited it as if it were enough evidence to form the basis to an
entire thesis, which is that plagiary was common and accepted in the
printed news media during the 1960s, when Twitchell published his
books, and that this somehow makes plagiarizing spiritual works
perfectly acceptable. Let’s take a look at some of your notions, as
derived from Meyer’s little piece on plagiary:
http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/plagiarism.html
Just because one textbook from 1938 asserts it is permissible to hide
sources and make news copy look original doesn’t mean that all
journalists agreed. This is not sufficient to prove wide tolerance of
plagiary among journalists, or among the public. And could you provide
a page or two of context from the textbook? Without context, you’re
asking us to trust your judgment that the context supports your
conclusions. Have you actually seen the textbook, or are you just
taking Meyer’s word that it means exactly what he says it means? Have
you checked Meyer’s source? One quote provided by Meyer, without
context, could be misleading. And why should I believe Meyer? I’ve
seen such comments turn out to mean something entirely different when
I’ve checked for context, so this is no small point I’m making.
Meyer’s article is far too brief from which to draw such sweeping
conclusions.
But that aside for a moment, it’s very revealing that the textbook
advised “CONCEALING the source of rewritten material in order to make
it seem original.” This strongly indicates that the textbook writer
was aware that plagiary is not tolerated by consumers, because if it
were, why CONCEAL the source from readers? Why try to fool people into
thinking it is original reporting? People hide things only when not
hiding them would cause problems. This is ironic because of what is
revealed by the wording. What Meyer’s article really indicates is not
that simply that plagiary was condoned, but that the plagiarists knew
it was corrupt or they wouldn’t see the need to conceal anything. Why
conceal if there is nothing to hide? Why hide sources from readers?
Why make news look original unless it’s known that the reading public
values originality? In fact, the very need to conceal sources and make
articles look original strongly indicates the public, even in 1938,
wouldn’t tolerate plagiarism and they wanted to know real sources and
valued originality.
You’ve hung your thesis about acceptability of plagiarism in the 1960s
on one small article by one lone academic who referred to one little
sentence in one 1938 textbook. This is very weak evidence, if it’s
evidence at all. Imagine if, during the 1960s, a decade in which I
was alive, newspapers disclosed in writing to readers that the news
stories in the paper were not original, but that they were made to
appear original to conceal from readers the real sources. Hilarious!
They would have quickly lost their credibility and their readership,
with the exception of a few fools who just don’t care about real news
reporting. So your evidence just doesn’t prove what you think it
proves. This is ridiculous.
Just because early 1927 codes of ethics for journalists did not have a
code against plagiary, as asserted by Meyer in his article, doesn’t
prove that plagiary was actually thought to be completely ethical.
I’d like to read the actual code of that date. It could simply mean
that a code that says something such as simple as ”do not tell lies”
or “strive to always honorably report the truth” was considered broad
enough to include plagiary. Or it could possibly indicate a simple
omission due to neglect, or it could even mean that a small degree of
unethical conduct in the profession was tolerated, but it doesn’t
prove journalists were not aware that plagiarism is frowned upon by a
public that doesn’t want to be lied to, or that they didn’t know that
plagiary in news reporting was unethical. News reporters are
considered by the public to be among the least ethical professions in
American society, just above used car salesman and politicians.
But regarding corruption in news journalism, there is a difference
between dishonestly looking the other way, and outright declaring
unethical acts to be ethical. People can know something is unethical,
even while they go along with an endemic unethical practice. To say
journalists tolerated plagiary is similar to saying business people
condone cheating on their taxes or nurses condone a chronic neglect to
wash their hands after wiping an incontinent, bed ridden patient.
People do things even when they know it isn’t right. And again, the
fact that reporters felt the need to conceal sources and alter text
enough to make articles appear original indicates they knew the public
wouldn’t tolerate plagiarism. This entire premise of yours is far too
black and white, and far too simplistic. It’s built on a thread of
truth, but the rest of your tapestry is woven from stretches and
exaggerations, and is extremely misleading. I suppose it’s good most
of your readers strongly want to believe you, because this doesn’t
hold up under scrutiny.
The evidence you cited does not prove that plagiarism was widely
accepted in the general PUBLIC and among consumers in the 1960s. Just
because something is “done all the time” doesn’t mean it is actually
considered ethical or encouraged by everyone involved, including
especially, the consumers. I doubt that any polls were taken in 1965
to ask the public about plagiary, but if there had been, how do you
think the public would respond? Would they say, “gee, yeah, I like my
news to be full of lies about who dug up the information and to not
disclose real sources. I’m not interested in knowing where the writer
got the information. Plagiary? Sure, why not?” If you believe this
would be the response, you’re tilting at windmills.
Your use of the term “journalism” in your assertions that
“journalists” accepted plagiary in that profession does not likely
include all forms of writing for public consumption in the printed
media. As I pointed out before, the finer essays and high caliber
writing by very good journalists for more discerning journals are not
the same as the nuts and bolts daily news journalism. Although Meyer’s
comments were all too brief to be clear, it seems Meyer was referring
to basic news journalists, not more elite writers. If even just for
market considerations, the more elite journals would never tolerate
getting burned by a plagiarizing writer, since it would undermine the
credibility of a good journal. I think it is reasonable to assume that
good journalism, even in the 1960s, was all about honest disclosure of
the truth. That’s what makes it "good" among discerning consumers in
an otherwise mediocre marketplace.
In your book you claim, without supplying a supporting reference, that
the “standard of journalism,” in 1965 when Paul published his books,
”accepted plagiarism” and “encouraged the practice.” Nowhere in
Meyer’s piece does he make this claim as forcefully as you do. He does
allude to news outlets borrowing news copy, but he indicates they at
least fact checked the news before printing. In other words, it was
still about getting the facts right, even if borrowing news stories
from other news outlets. But he doesn’t say it wasn’t known to be
unethical, he only suggests it was done. He doesn’t say it was
actually encouraged, only that it was more tolerated in the news
industry than it is today, unless you think one line out of a textbook
creates a standard, and is enough to conclude the standard was
encouraged. This comment you made strikes me as an exaggeration.
When Meyer comments that “Journalism standards are changing -- and not
always toward recklessness. Here is one that's getting tighter…” in
reference to plagiarism, he didn’t indicate it was once completely
acceptable, and now it isn’t, he simply meant that the latitude for
plagiary, in which organizations corruptly allowed it or looked the
other way in a competitive marketplace of news reporting, is
narrowing. In other words, it wasn’t a change of huge contrast from
black to white. It’s obvious there was a public demand, even in 1965,
for originality, otherwise why conceal plagiary? So while everyone
knew plagiary didn’t exactly represent the heights of ethical
journalism, it was done anyway, but hidden from the public. This
doesn’t suggest that journalists were having an orgy of open plagiary
and that the public didn’t care, it suggests that it was done in the
back rooms, behind the scenes, away from a public eye that everyone
knew wouldn’t approve of plagiarism in news. So reporters wouldn’t
proudly broadcast their indulgence in plagiary from the rooftops,
because the public didn’t see it as something to be proud of.
Meyer doesn’t state that the ethical code against plagiarism was
limited to just academia or literature, but you give no other
reference to support that comment you made. Meyer was referring to the
daily marketplace of newsprint. I don’t see any evidence that in the
1960s it was considered acceptable by reputable publishers to purchase
manuscripts of plagiarized fiction or nonfiction works, even if those
works were new age religion or philosophy, like Twitchell’s books. You
try to make the case that Twitchell was accustomed to plagiarizing
when he was a reporter, and thus, his habit carried over into his
Eckankar writing. This is a fairly big stretch. As I’ve pointed out,
reporters obviously were aware that the public, at least, didn’t
condone plagiary and any reporter who ventured into non-fiction
writing about new age religions would surely be aware that credible
publishers would not intentionally buy works that were known to be
plagiarized because of the threat of lawsuits as well as loss of
credibility. So I don’t buy into your notion that PT’s plagiary was
somehow innocently done, as if PT was so out of touch with reality
that he wasn’t aware that plagiary could be a problem with the public,
if they were to discover his rampant plagiarism. Thus, your assertion
that "religious works" were commonly plagiarized does not appear to
apply to the 1960s when PT was writing his books.
The most ridiculous stretch you’ve made is to equate the wild world of
news reporting to writing spiritual books by someone who alleges
himself to be the highest master of all worlds. Because news
reporters stole news stories, that makes spiritual giants free to
plagiarize? This makes no sense at all.
Tianyue
Doug
Tianyue,
You should read the opening pages of David Lane's book again. He is
quite open to the phenomenal growth that Eckankar experienced in its
first ten years. It was quite an accomplishment, and for a long time
after Paul left this world, his books were still very popular.
But we live in a time when nothing lasts. That's one thing that has
changed. You might have a great book today, but it won't be great
forever in our modern culture, because everyone wants new materials
and new books.
The old vaudeville actors tried to make it on TV and found that the
acts they had perfected over decades were good for one show, and then
people wanted to see something else. You've heard about the one-hit
wonders, who made the top of the music charts, but could never follow
it up with another hit. It doesn't last long in modern times.
Take a book like The Course in Miracles, which has become very
popular, but more because of the organization and group meetings than
because of the book. That's what it takes today, and that was exactly
what Paul started.
But to follow up with your comparison, how widely known do you think
the Tao Te Ching was fifty years after it was first written? Do you
think all the school children of China were reading it? Not likely.
Reading was generally limited to a very small percent of the
population, and mostly monks and royalty. If it lasted for
generations, it was either because there was a religious order who
preserved it and passed on the teaching, or because someone in power
politically decided to give it official recognition and attention.
It is people who do this, not books.
Today, anything can become famous overnight, or even within minutes
via Twitter. But there is much less awareness today of what will last
through the ages.
Every age is different, and so the path is taught differently in every
time.
And I agree with you that the Tao Te Ching is one of the world's
greatest books.
Doug.
Dennis
One can only wonder.
In any case, it's all completely subjective if you have never had an
experience with any of these "masters" (they themselves refuse to be called
"Master"). Whether Rebazar Tarzs ever existed or not (and most likey he had
the same degree of flesh as Jesus Christ), it only matters to one if they
have actually made contact and was taught directly from one of these master
souls.
It's one someone else's 'story' unless you actually live it.
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bd82736b-4e7f-4783...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Etznab
It was mostly the quotes by Rebazar Tarzs
and similar - if not the same - quotes in Path
Of The Masters.
Etznab
Etznab
I thought you make a good point there. I also enjoyed
reading the research and comments about plagiarism. I
thought some of them were very good and worth consid-
eration.
Etznab
Ken
It strikes me that from Paul's perspective, what he was doing with his
Eckankar writing was probably more like newspaper reporting than
acadmeic authorship.
--
Ken
Ken
> a journalism textbook from 1938 condoned plagiarism in the field of
> and posited it as if it were enough evidence to form the basis to an
> entire thesis, which is that plagiary was common and accepted in the
> printed news media during the 1960s, when Twitchell published his
> books, and that this somehow makes plagiarizing spiritual works
> derived from Meyer�s little piece on plagiary:
>
> http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/plagiarism.html
>
> Just because one textbook from 1938 asserts it is permissible to hide
> journalists agreed. This is not sufficient to prove wide tolerance of
> plagiary among journalists, or among the public. And could you provide
> asking us to trust your judgment that the context supports your
> conclusions. Have you actually seen the textbook, or are you just
> you checked Meyer�s source? One quote provided by Meyer, without
> context, could be misleading. And why should I believe Meyer? I�ve
> seen such comments turn out to mean something entirely different when
> Meyer�s article is far too brief from which to draw such sweeping
> conclusions.
>
> But that aside for a moment, it�s very revealing that the textbook
> advised �CONCEALING the source of rewritten material in order to make
> it seem original.� This strongly indicates that the textbook writer
> was aware that plagiary is not tolerated by consumers, because if it
> were, why CONCEAL the source from readers? Why try to fool people into
> thinking it is original reporting? People hide things only when not
> hiding them would cause problems. This is ironic because of what is
> that simply that plagiary was condoned, but that the plagiarists knew
> conceal if there is nothing to hide? Why hide sources from readers?
> values originality? In fact, the very need to conceal sources and make
> articles look original strongly indicates the public, even in 1938,
> valued originality.
>
> You�ve hung your thesis about acceptability of plagiarism in the 1960s
> on one small article by one lone academic who referred to one little
> evidence at all. Imagine if, during the 1960s, a decade in which I
> was alive, newspapers disclosed in writing to readers that the news
> stories in the paper were not original, but that they were made to
> appear original to conceal from readers the real sources. Hilarious!
> They would have quickly lost their credibility and their readership,
> reporting. So your evidence just doesn�t prove what you think it
> proves. This is ridiculous.
>
> Just because early 1927 codes of ethics for journalists did not have a
> prove that plagiary was actually thought to be completely ethical.
> that a code that says something such as simple as �do not tell lies�
> or �strive to always honorably report the truth� was considered broad
> enough to include plagiary. Or it could possibly indicate a simple
> omission due to neglect, or it could even mean that a small degree of
> prove journalists were not aware that plagiarism is frowned upon by a
> plagiary in news reporting was unethical. News reporters are
> considered by the public to be among the least ethical professions in
> American society, just above used car salesman and politicians.
>
> But regarding corruption in news journalism, there is a difference
> between dishonestly looking the other way, and outright declaring
> unethical acts to be ethical. People can know something is unethical,
> even while they go along with an endemic unethical practice. To say
> journalists tolerated plagiary is similar to saying business people
> condone cheating on their taxes or nurses condone a chronic neglect to
> wash their hands after wiping an incontinent, bed ridden patient.
> fact that reporters felt the need to conceal sources and alter text
> enough to make articles appear original indicates they knew the public
> black and white, and far too simplistic. It�s built on a thread of
> truth, but the rest of your tapestry is woven from stretches and
> of your readers strongly want to believe you, because this doesn�t
> hold up under scrutiny.
>
> The evidence you cited does not prove that plagiarism was widely
> accepted in the general PUBLIC and among consumers in the 1960s. Just
> considered ethical or encouraged by everyone involved, including
> especially, the consumers. I doubt that any polls were taken in 1965
> to ask the public about plagiary, but if there had been, how do you
> news to be full of lies about who dug up the information and to not
> got the information. Plagiary? Sure, why not?� If you believe this
> would be the response, you�re tilting at windmills.
>
> Your use of the term �journalism� in your assertions that
> �journalists� accepted plagiary in that profession does not likely
> include all forms of writing for public consumption in the printed
> media. As I pointed out before, the finer essays and high caliber
> writing by very good journalists for more discerning journals are not
> comments were all too brief to be clear, it seems Meyer was referring
> to basic news journalists, not more elite writers. If even just for
> market considerations, the more elite journals would never tolerate
> getting burned by a plagiarizing writer, since it would undermine the
> credibility of a good journal. I think it is reasonable to assume that
> good journalism, even in the 1960s, was all about honest disclosure of
> an otherwise mediocre marketplace.
>
> In your book you claim, without supplying a supporting reference, that
> �accepted plagiarism� and �encouraged the practice.� Nowhere in
> Meyer�s piece does he make this claim as forcefully as you do. He does
> allude to news outlets borrowing news copy, but he indicates they at
> least fact checked the news before printing. In other words, it was
> still about getting the facts right, even if borrowing news stories
> unethical, he only suggests it was done. He doesn�t say it was
> actually encouraged, only that it was more tolerated in the news
> industry than it is today, unless you think one line out of a textbook
> creates a standard, and is enough to conclude the standard was
> encouraged. This comment you made strikes me as an exaggeration.
>
> always toward recklessness. Here is one that's getting tighter�� in
> reference to plagiarism, he didn�t indicate it was once completely
> acceptable, and now it isn�t, he simply meant that the latitude for
> plagiary, in which organizations corruptly allowed it or looked the
> other way in a competitive marketplace of news reporting, is
> black to white. It�s obvious there was a public demand, even in 1965,
> for originality, otherwise why conceal plagiary? So while everyone
> journalism, it was done anyway, but hidden from the public. This
> and that the public didn�t care, it suggests that it was done in the
> back rooms, behind the scenes, away from a public eye that everyone
> proudly broadcast their indulgence in plagiary from the rooftops,
>
> Meyer doesn�t state that the ethical code against plagiarism was
> limited to just academia or literature, but you give no other
> reference to support that comment you made. Meyer was referring to the
> 1960s it was considered acceptable by reputable publishers to purchase
> manuscripts of plagiarized fiction or nonfiction works, even if those
> try to make the case that Twitchell was accustomed to plagiarizing
> when he was a reporter, and thus, his habit carried over into his
> reporters obviously were aware that the public, at least, didn�t
> condone plagiary and any reporter who ventured into non-fiction
> writing about new age religions would surely be aware that credible
> publishers would not intentionally buy works that were known to be
> plagiarized because of the threat of lawsuits as well as loss of
> somehow innocently done, as if PT was so out of touch with reality
> if they were to discover his rampant plagiarism. Thus, your assertion
> that "religious works" were commonly plagiarized does not appear to
> apply to the 1960s when PT was writing his books.
>
> news reporting to writing spiritual books by someone who alleges
> himself to be the highest master of all worlds. Because news
> reporters stole news stories, that makes spiritual giants free to
> plagiarize? This makes no sense at all.
>
> Tianyue
You asked Doug to provide evidence that plagiarism was considered
acceptable by news journalists, which he did. But that's not enough, is
it? I wouldn't be at all surprised that you'd disregard any evidence he
found. Even if it were piled higher and deeper until it reached the
altitude of Everest, you'd still say it wasn't enough.
--
Ken
TianYue
> > a journalism textbook from 1938 condoned plagiarism in the field of
> > and posited it as if it were enough evidence to form the basis to an
> > entire thesis, which is that plagiary was common and accepted in the
> > printed news media during the 1960s, when Twitchell published his
> > books, and that this somehow makes plagiarizing spiritual works
> > derived from Meyer’s little piece on plagiary:
>
> >http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/plagiarism.html
>
> > Just because one textbook from 1938 asserts it is permissible to hide
> > journalists agreed. This is not sufficient to prove wide tolerance of
> > plagiary among journalists, or among the public. And could you provide
> > asking us to trust your judgment that the context supports your
> > conclusions. Have you actually seen the textbook, or are you just
> > you checked Meyer’s source? One quote provided by Meyer, without
> > context, could be misleading. And why should I believe Meyer? I’ve
> > seen such comments turn out to mean something entirely different when
> > Meyer’s article is far too brief from which to draw such sweeping
> > conclusions.
>
> > But that aside for a moment, it’s very revealing that the textbook
> > advised “CONCEALING the source of rewritten material in order to make
> > it seem original.” This strongly indicates that the textbook writer
> > was aware that plagiary is not tolerated by consumers, because if it
> > were, why CONCEAL the source from readers? Why try to fool people into
> > thinking it is original reporting? People hide things only when not
> > hiding them would cause problems. This is ironic because of what is
> > that simply that plagiary was condoned, but that the plagiarists knew
> > conceal if there is nothing to hide? Why hide sources from readers?
> > values originality? In fact, the very need to conceal sources and make
> > articles look original strongly indicates the public, even in 1938,
> > valued originality.
>
> > You’ve hung your thesis about acceptability of plagiarism in the 1960s
> > on one small article by one lone academic who referred to one little
> > evidence at all. Imagine if, during the 1960s, a decade in which I
> > was alive, newspapers disclosed in writing to readers that the news
> > stories in the paper were not original, but that they were made to
> > appear original to conceal from readers the real sources. Hilarious!
> > They would have quickly lost their credibility and their readership,
> > reporting. So your evidence just doesn’t prove what you think it
> > proves. This is ridiculous.
>
> > Just because early 1927 codes of ethics for journalists did not have a
> > prove that plagiary was actually thought to be completely ethical.
> > that a code that says something such as simple as ”do not tell lies”
> > enough to include plagiary. Or it could possibly indicate a simple
> > omission due to neglect, or it could even mean that a small degree of
> > prove journalists were not aware that plagiarism is frowned upon by a
> > plagiary in news reporting was unethical. News reporters are
> > considered by the public to be among the least ethical professions in
> > American society, just above used car salesman and politicians.
>
> > But regarding corruption in news journalism, there is a difference
> > between dishonestly looking the other way, and outright declaring
> > unethical acts to be ethical. People can know something is unethical,
> > even while they go along with an endemic unethical practice. To say
> > journalists tolerated plagiary is similar to saying business people
> > condone cheating on their taxes or nurses condone a chronic neglect to
> > wash their hands after wiping an incontinent, bed ridden patient.
> > fact that reporters felt the need to conceal sources and alter text
> > enough to make articles appear original indicates they knew the public
> > black and white, and far too simplistic. It’s built on a thread of
> > truth, but the rest of your tapestry is woven from stretches and
> > of your readers strongly want to believe you, because this doesn’t
> > hold up under scrutiny.
>
> > The evidence you cited does not prove that plagiarism was widely
> > accepted in the general PUBLIC and among consumers in the 1960s. Just
> > considered ethical or encouraged by everyone involved, including
> > especially, the consumers. I doubt that any polls were taken in 1965
> > to ask the public about plagiary, but if there had been, how do you
> > news to be full of lies about who dug up the information and to not
> > got the information. Plagiary? Sure, why not?” If you believe this
> > would be the response, you’re tilting at windmills.
>
> > Your use of the term “journalism” in your assertions that
> > include all forms of writing for public consumption in the printed
> > media. As I pointed out before, the finer essays and high caliber
> > writing by very good journalists for more discerning journals are not
> > comments were all too brief to be clear, it seems Meyer was referring
> > to basic news journalists, not more elite writers. If even just for
> > market considerations, the more elite journals would never tolerate
> > getting burned by a plagiarizing writer, since it would undermine the
> > credibility of a good journal. I think it is reasonable to assume that
> > good journalism, even in the 1960s, was all about honest disclosure of
> > an otherwise mediocre marketplace.
>
> > In your book you claim, without supplying a supporting reference, that
> > ”accepted plagiarism” and “encouraged the practice.” Nowhere in
> > allude to news outlets borrowing news copy, but he indicates they at
> > least fact checked the news before printing. In other words, it was
> > still about getting the facts right, even if borrowing news stories
> > unethical, he only suggests it was done. He doesn’t say it was
> > actually encouraged, only that it was more tolerated in the news
> > industry than it is today, unless you think one line out of a textbook
> > creates a standard, and is enough to conclude the standard was
> > encouraged. This comment you made strikes me as an exaggeration.
>
> > always toward recklessness. Here is one that's getting tighter…” in
> > reference to plagiarism, he didn’t indicate it was once completely
> > acceptable, and now it isn’t, he simply meant that the latitude for
> > plagiary, in which organizations corruptly allowed it or looked the
> > other way in a competitive marketplace of news reporting, is
> > black to white. It’s obvious there was a public demand, even in 1965,
> > for originality, otherwise why conceal plagiary? So while everyone
> > journalism, it was done anyway, but hidden from the public. This
> > and that the public didn’t care, it suggests that it was done in the
> > back rooms, behind the scenes, away from a public eye that everyone
> > proudly broadcast their indulgence in plagiary from the rooftops,
>
> > Meyer doesn’t state that the ethical code against plagiarism was
> > limited to just academia or literature, but you give no other
> > reference to support that comment you made. Meyer was referring to the
> > 1960s it was considered acceptable by reputable publishers to purchase
> > manuscripts of plagiarized fiction or nonfiction works, even if those
> > try to make the case that Twitchell was accustomed to plagiarizing
> > when he was a reporter, and thus, his habit carried over into his
> > reporters obviously were aware that the public, at least, didn’t
> > condone plagiary and any reporter who ventured into non-fiction
> > writing about new age religions would surely be aware that credible
> > publishers would not intentionally buy works that were known to be
> > plagiarized because of the threat of lawsuits as well as loss of
> > somehow innocently done, as if PT was so out of touch with reality
> > if they were to discover his rampant plagiarism. Thus, your assertion
> > that "religious works" were commonly plagiarized does not appear to
> > apply to the 1960s when PT was writing his books.
>
> > news reporting to writing spiritual books by someone who alleges
> > himself to be the highest master of all worlds. Because news
> > reporters stole news stories, that makes spiritual giants free to
> > plagiarize? This makes no sense at all.
>
> > Tianyue
>
> You asked Doug to provide evidence that plagiarism was considered
> acceptable by news journalists, which he did. But that's not enough, is
> it? I wouldn't be at all surprised that you'd disregard any evidence he
> found. Even if it were piled higher and deeper until it reached the
> altitude of Everest, you'd still say it wasn't enough.
>
> --
> Ken
You're overlooking the larger issues that prompted me to ask that
question. I both question Doug's evidence (which is very weak, if it's
evidence at all) and the conclusions he derived from the "evidence."
Tianyue
TianYue
Excellent point, Etznab.
Tianyue
TianYue
It is erroneous to compare the conventions of literary ethics that
occurred several thousand years ago to the 1960s. All manner of
behaviors were thought to be permissible in those early periods that
are not considered appropriate in our times. There was little respect
for individual civil rights.
PT was a man who existed during my own life, not 2,000 years ago. In
the 1960s, it wasn't permissible to plagiarize when publishing popular
fiction or nonfiction, or new age books on soul travel or Eastern
philosophy. It is so easy to simply provide a note of credit to
referenced writing by other authors, that when this isn't done,
especially considering the rather large number of plagiarized
paragraphs that PT plagiarized, it clearly reveals an intent to
conceal sources. At the least it is (and was in 1960) considered bad
form and a sign of sleazy ethics, at worst it was something that could
cause litigation.
Tianyue
Doug
You keep saying that everyone else is overlooking things, but you
might want to take this more as an open discussion than a debate. I
think Ken nailed you on this one.
For example, you challenge what research I've done, but you haven't
even read my book to see what I actually wrote on the subject. If you
did, you would see how wrong most of your comments are. But what I'm
trying to understand is: If it is so important that you would
criticize others for a lack of research, then why is it okay for you
to spout off these things without knowing what the truth was?
If you treated this more as a friendly dialogue, where we can ask
questions and offer different viewpoints, then no one would be acting
as if there was some kind of bar of research that must be passed. We
are simply sharing our ideas and ways of seeing it. Otherwise, if you
insist of living by the sword, you will likely be dying on it as
well.
But let me try to respond to your very long post.
First, I disagree that I have misrepresented the significance of
Meyer's article. See below.
Second, I have not based everything on one article. Read my book.
Third, I have not built a whole thesis based on one article. I wrote a
whole chapter, over 40 pages on the subject.
Fourth, Meyer does say that just one textbook on journalism encouraged
the use of plagiarism. He said:
"C.D. MacDougall, whose 1938 book Interpretative Reporting was
once the standard text, advised concealing the source of rewritten
material in order to make it seem original."
So your comment - "Just because one textbook from 1938 asserts it is
permissible to hide sources and make news copy look original doesn’t
mean that all journalists agreed" - is bogus. It was considered the
"standard text" for journalism. Standard means the leading reference
for journalism. Why would you distort this to make it sound as if it
was just one textbook?
Are you really trying to assert that you know better than Meyer does?
That's what it sounds like to me. This wasn't some side comment Meyer
made, it was the whole basis of his article, that plagiarism used to
be okay in journalism, but now it isn't.
Fifth, you wrote: "Without context, you’re asking us to trust your
judgment that the context supports your conclusions."
No, I'm not asking anyone to trust my opinion on this. I quoted Meyer
because he is a leading authority on journalism and he not only said
it, but wrote a whole article on this subject. If you aren't going to
believe him, then there is certainly nothing I could say that would
change your mind. Which brings us back to exactly what Ken said. It
wouldn't matter how much evidence I presented.
Personally, I think this is fine. I sometimes read things from
authorities and say I just don't believe it. After I've done the
research I have sometimes found out that the authority was wrong, and
sometimes right. So, it is perfectly fine to say you don't believe it.
But that doesn't mean you know it is wrong. If you want to prove that,
you need to do a whole lot more research than what you've written
here.
I did do that research myself. I spent quite a bit of time researching
it, and I probably wrote more pages on the subject than it deserved,
mainly because I found it to be a fascinating subject, not at all what
I expected.
Sixth, you wrote: "Meyer’s article is far too brief from which to draw
such sweeping conclusions."
If you are saying that Meyer doesn't provide a complete thesis proving
his point, you are right. He was writing for USA Today and no one
would have published such an article in a mainstream publication.
However, it is not at all a sweeping conclusion to see clearly what
Meyer was saying: That plagiarism was accepted and in many cases
encouraged in journalism until the 1980's, when opinions changed. This
is the whole basis of his article. He provides enough evidence to make
his point, but he wasn't trying to prove that. However, it is quite
clear from the way he writes that he feels this point has been proven.
He is simply not taking up the space to prove the whole case -
probably because it is well known and understood.
However, I did find other evidence to support this in the many other
texts I studied. In fact, I found out why journalism treated the
matter differently from literature, and in fact why many other fields
treat it differently. It isn't just journalism. It varied tremendously
across all the major fields. I shared this in my book.
Seventh, you wrote:
> > > But that aside for a moment, it’s very revealing that the textbook
> > > advised “CONCEALING the source of rewritten material in order to make
> > > it seem original.” This strongly indicates that the textbook writer
> > > was aware that plagiary is not tolerated by consumers, because if it
> > > were, why CONCEAL the source from readers?
You just went on and on about not research something thoroughly before
making such a bold statement, and then you say this? Have you
researched this? Once again, if you stopped all the criticism, this
would be a fine discussion point. But it seems so hypocritical of you
to criticize others and then make such a statement like this, which is
purely conjecture.
I happen to think sharing a conjecture is okay. I'm not criticizing
you for raising the question. I think it is a good question, and I
happen to enjoy discussing things like this. It is, however, just a
question you are raising, and I don't find your conclusion convincing.
So, let's look at your question: Why use the word, conceal?
The word conceal makes it clear that MacDougall was not just
suggesting copying the material, but also not giving the original
author credit for the piece. In other words, run it as news, without
having to credit the source that the original material was taken from.
I don't know if conceal was the original word that MacDougall used,
but it was used by Meyer to make his point clear that the "standard
text" advised plagiarising, exactly as we think of the term today. He
was trying to leave no doubt that this wasn't some watered down
version of plagiarism that used to be okay, but the real thing that
was practiced and encouraged in the past.
But the bigger question is: Why on earth would a textbook used by
colleges and universities to teach students on the proper practice of
journalism allow it to promote something that was widely seen as
unethical? How could it ever have been the "standard text" for
journalism if it was encouraging unethical treatment?
Here is a search on Google Books for references to C.D. MacDougall and
his book Interpretative Reporting:
Notice that there is a long list of books that reference it, and that
MacDougall's book was in its 4th edition in 1963. That looks like a
textbook that was considered a reference, right up to the 1960's,
exactly as Meyer claimed.
Here is a book by Phillip Meyer where he talks about the high standard
of journalism taught by MacDougall's book. See page 65, the section
called Credibility and Influence:
In other words, it was not just a textbook, but one that taught the
highest standard of journalism. Well, if this was true, why on earth
would it be teaching a practice that was unethical? That makes no
sense.
I think Meyer's point holds: It simply was not considered unethical to
plagiarize in journalism back then, and in fact it was encouraged for
good reasons. It made perfect sense in the news business back then.
But today it is different.
Eighth, you wrote:
> > > Imagine if, during the 1960s, a decade in which I
> > > was alive, newspapers disclosed in writing to readers that the news
> > > stories in the paper were not original, but that they were made to
> > > appear original to conceal from readers the real sources. Hilarious!
> > > They would have quickly lost their credibility and their readership,
> > > with the exception of a few fools who just don’t care about real news
> > > reporting. So your evidence just doesn’t prove what you think it
> > > proves. This is ridiculous.
I don't think you get what Meyer is saying, or how much things have
changed. When people read their newspapers back then, what they cared
about was the accuracy of the news. Much of the newspaper and magazine
reporting did not even have bylines. Did people reject it if it had no
byline? Was that considered dishonest? Did the readers think that the
newspaper reporting the news was the first to ever report it? Why
would they think that? Did they think that the newspaper may have
found this from somewhere else? Yes, that is exactly what a reporter
is supposed to do is unearth the news, wherever they can find it.
I think the answer is that of course readers realized that all the
news wasn't first revealed to the world by that newspaper. The
newspaper was simply revealing it to that local community for the
first time, and accuracy of the information is what mattered most, not
who the original author was. If the people hadn't heard about it in
that community before, then that made it news. The lay public did not
have a desire for nor would they have tolerated a lot of footnotes or
source credits in their newspaper that they read at breakfast. Today
we like it, so that we can follow up research ourselves. Back then, it
made it sound academic and was a real bad way of reporting news.
Ninth, you wrote:
> > > News reporters are
> > > considered by the public to be among the least ethical professions in
> > > American society, just above used car salesman and politicians.
Today that is true, but back in those days this is completely false.
In fact, journalists used to have a much better reputation. Imagine
that - a better reputation while they were plagiarizing - and a worst
reputation now that they have stopped! The statistics on how far the
reputation of journalism has fallen are well know. That book by
Phillip Meyer mentioned above is about that exact subject and how to
save journalism today. It was once one of the most honorable
professions with very high ideals.
Tenth, you wrote:
> > > The evidence you cited does not prove that plagiarism was widely
> > > accepted in the general PUBLIC and among consumers in the 1960s. Just
> > > because something is “done all the time” doesn’t mean it is actually
> > > considered ethical or encouraged by everyone involved, including
> > > especially, the consumers. I doubt that any polls were taken in 1965
> > > to ask the public about plagiary, but if there had been, how do you
> > > think the public would respond?
No argument from me. Actually, the public opinion is often at odds
with the ethics used by professionals in many given professions. I
talked about this in my book as well, and gave a number of examples.
People are often surprised and might even be shocked about what is
considered ethical and appropriate by professionals, until they really
understand. Outsiders often don't realize how little they know and try
to judge things based on their little bit of information.
Our modern day world is actually worse in this regard, since more
people today are arrogant enough to think they can judge anyone and
everyone from their armchair, without even a smidgen of experience or
research. It has become the right to criticize, which is foolishness
of the ultimate level. It is such bad ethics to live and act this way,
that it is hard to see this as anymore than pure ignorance.
The point here is that the public opinion being different from the
professional opinion is exactly the point. Meyer never said that
everyone use to think plagiarism was okay. He said that journalism
did. Not the scum of the earth journalists, but the highest caliber
and best standard of journalism.
The fact that this surprises us is exactly the point. It shows exactly
why it is so wrong to criticize others in other professions based on
our standards today from our limited experience. The field of
plagiarism is rife with these kinds of issues of contradiction, and I
found references to this everywhere down through history in many of
the major books on the subject.
Eleventh, you wrote:
> > > Your use of the term “journalism” in your assertions that
> > > “journalists” accepted plagiary in that profession does not likely
> > > include all forms of writing for public consumption in the printed
> > > media. As I pointed out before, the finer essays and high caliber
> > > writing by very good journalists for more discerning journals are not
> > > the same as the nuts and bolts daily news journalism. Although Meyer’s
> > > comments were all too brief to be clear, it seems Meyer was referring
> > > to basic news journalists, not more elite writers.
I disagree. Meyer was referring to the best practices of journalism,
not some kind of basic performance. See his reference to the book in
the link above on Google Books. MacDougall's book was describing the
highest level of journalistic practices and ethics. That's exactly why
it became the "standard text".
You went on to make a number of similar comments in an attempt to
deflate what Meyer wrote, but all of your suppositions are along this
same line - assuming that Meyer didn't really mean what he said - that
journalists must have really known it was unethical.
I can certainly relate to your reaction. This was why I researched the
matter so thoroughly. But that's exactly the problem with plagiarism.
People today have been taught that it is almost a sin. It is like
stealing. But history doesn't support this position. It is purely a
cultural opinion, not a basic truth. When you are punished as a child,
before your old enough to think about these things, it is easy to grow
up without questioning them. But the educational system is questioning
this practice today, because once you look closely at it, you will
find out that it is filled with contradictions and hypocrisy.
Twelfth, you wrote:
> > > Meyer doesn’t state that the ethical code against plagiarism was
> > > limited to just academia or literature, but you give no other
> > > reference to support that comment you made.
Read my book. Lots of references to support my comment there. Did you
really think I was posting the full chapter in my previous post? I've
got over 40 pages on this subject in my book.
Lastly, you wrote:
> > > The most ridiculous stretch you’ve made is to equate the wild world of
> > > news reporting to writing spiritual books by someone who alleges
> > > himself to be the highest master of all worlds. Because news
> > > reporters stole news stories, that makes spiritual giants free to
> > > plagiarize? This makes no sense at all.
I never tried to equate journalism with religion. You are the one
doing so here. I agree it makes no sense at all.
My point has always been that if we want to understand Paul from his
point of view, we need to recognize that more than anything else in
his life, before he began Eckankar, he was a journalist. He worked in
that field since 1940. That was his profession.
In my book, I go into the whole study of plagiarism in religion as a
completely separate subject. And guess what? Historically, the
practice of plagiarism in religious texts is almost a given. In fact,
as you have pointed out, hiding the sources and the real authors was
often considered the highest of ethics. Why? Because it put the Truth
and the power of Truth first above all else. It wasn't to sell books,
because there wasn't a book business to speak of until the last few
hundred years. There wasn't a wide enough reading audience.
I go into all of this in my book.
Once again, I think it would make far more sense to treat these as
discussions, rather than some kind of prosecution case. That way it is
okay if we change our minds and we can still respect others for seeing
things differently. We don't have to have so much at stake. We can
question this to better see these things as they are, rather than
trying to make them look a certain way.
At least that is how I prefer to approach it. It also makes it more
enjoyable and a lot more friendly.
Doug.
Etznab
>
> Notice that there is a long list of books that reference it, and that
> MacDougall's book was in its 4th edition in 1963. That looks like a
> textbook that was considered a reference, right up to the 1960's,
> exactly as Meyer claimed.
>
> Here is a book by Phillip Meyer where he talks about the high standard
> of journalism taught by MacDougall's book. See page 65, the section
> called Credibility and Influence:
>
>
> read more »
Generally speaking I see the plagiarism issue as a decoy
of sorts. One taking attention away from the greater issue.
Eckankar is a kind of "path to God". Although it might be
different from one individual to the next, there is a standard
dogma. Not only is there a standard dogma, there are many
instances when such dogma appears to come by way of so
many masters. By way of so many Lords on different planes
of existence. And - in a number of places - by way of "God".
This subject of a path to God is not the same as science
fiction. It is a subject speaking to the core of every individual.
Speaking to the core of life itself - and the geography of the
universe. What is suppose to set Eckankar apart from many
other paths is a "LIVING" Master. What is also suppose to
be unique about Eckankar is contact with "REAL" Spiritual
Travelers and the very "REAL" Lords on very "REAL" planes
of existence.
It is not taught the Eck Masters are like science fiction
characters and the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master just a
person pretending to speak for God. Eckankar is not the
description of a science fiction novel and / or some news-
paper report! It is said to be so much more than this and it
speaks to a persons life both now and in the future.
Concealing sources??? Is that what the greater issue is
about? I don't think so. It appears to me that the greatest
issue is how pages from a book equate to "Living Master".
Etznab
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
news:cpednemqzPllMR_X...@supernews.com...
If it was more like newspaper reporting, it is a novel approach for the
reporter to be the "news" himself. :)
I think it was more like Driver Training --- there's a big difference
between explaining how to drive a car, and then actually doing it yourself
under all conditions for the rest of your life - conditions that may not
have been covered in the instruction manual or the one-on-one training.
Of course, such things are complicated too, and no simple analogy will hold
all the nuances. cheers
Etznab
wernertrp
> INTRODUCTION - The Far Country, by PaulTwitchell (3rd paragraph):"Rebazar Tarzs, the great ECK Master, from the eastern region of Tibet, is the moving figure in this book. He went through a complete series of dialogues with me, about the whole works of ECKANKAR, the ancient science of Soul Travel. He also included in these discourses the planes beyond the physical senses. Hence the title The FAR COUNTRY, meaning those worlds which are generally invisible to man and his outer facilities."******************************************************Chapter One - The Far Country (Copyright 1970, 3rd Printing 1972, p. 27), by Paul Twitchell (the modern day founder of Eckankar):[Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell] " 'The whole universe is considered as One, the true ECKANKAR. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also co-existent with God, infinite, unlimited. Hence the SUGMAD is Nirankar, i.e.formless.' "******************************************************Now take a look at the 1939 book called The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson (Chapter 5 - God and the Grand Hierarchy of the Universe, section 4., 3rd paragraph) - [* = words in italics]:"The whole universe is considered as *one, the true Ekankar. There is perfect oneness in the universe, which is also coexistent with God - infinite, unlimited. Hence, the Soami is *nirankar, that is, formless. As such, he is without personality, hencewithout name."BTW, that illustrated only a small section fromthe two books.For those industrious enough - and not living in a state of denial - one could open the chapter to Paul Twitchell's Eckankar book and compare it with what appeared decades earlier by Johnson.My question is about whether Rebazar Tarzs was a real living person by that name? I'm serious!Judging by the number of material allegedly given to Paul Twitchell via Rebazar Tarzs. Its near and, in some places, exact similarity to illustrations in The Path of the Masters ... doesn't it raise a number of eyebrows when people look at the two side by side?I believe an online copy for The Path of the Masters book exists, and I'll try to find a link so Eck members (or people) who already have Paul Twitchell's book - The Far Country - can compare the two and see how much similar material I am referring to.For a little bit more perspective on this subject, the following might be of interest.******************************************************Date: June 19, 1980My 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 be- tween 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 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 com-panions.Signed: Louis Bluth, M.D.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankarhistory/message/1434******************************************************Mr Bluth. I believe, was the "president of Eckankar" at the time of Paul Twitchell's death in September 1971.In Ford Johnson's book - Confessions of a God Seeker - Mr. Bluth (I believe) was referred to as a "one-time follower ofSawan Sing. Why does this appear to mean anything to me? Simply because Sawan Singh was the Master of Julian Johnson and his picture appears in The Path of the Masters book!What I am having trouble with is trying to clarify whether or not Rebazar Tarzs was / is a real person living today, & whether the person described (and illustrated) by Eckankar was / is more than Paul Twitchell's copied words from that Radha Soami book.In light of this evidence, what is Eckankar's current position about Rebazar Tarzs. Is he real? or imaginary? I'm not sure what the current position is.Etznab
Rebazar Tarzs is a virtually Eckmaster in Eckankar.
He has been virtualized by Paul Twitchell and helped him
to write many books.
He is virtually born in Tibet and grow virtually 500 years old.
Stop-End-discussion.
qarri...@gmail.com
Henosis Sage
> I am confused, just a little bit. If Louis Bluth, MD and his wife opened an Eck class in 1980, how is it that they are practitioners on the path and not know if Rebazar Tarzs is real or not. Before opening an Eck class, wouldn't it be of crucial importance to somewhat experienced in out of body travel. I would think after so many years had passed with continuous practice the existence of Rebazar Tarzs would have been answered and realized along time ago without a shadow of a doubt.
Hi. Let me help if I can. Though it would help to know which "comment/s" you
are referring to first.
Dr Bluth's 'letter' to David Lane was written in 1980.
He and his wife opened the first eckankar class in CA separate to twitchell giving all lectures circa 1966.
Whatever Bluth told Lane was far more than the short note - but he has never said
what Buth (and many others) told him back in the 70s and 80s. You could contact Lane and ask him, I have but he wouldn't say.
Dr Bluth had been in Radhasoami for a long time and he also had involvement in
Scientology, that Twitchell was a staff member for.
So when Bluth first represented Twitchell it was only very early days for them -
like only a few months. Bluth soon became one of Paul's most senior initiators ahead of Patti S and Darwin Gross who did not join until 1968.
RE: "I would think after so many years had passed with continuous practice the
ago without a shadow of a doubt."
referring to here?