1.



I'm not from the Sunset group, though I spent time with eckankar in the late 70s
and the early to mid 80s. I agree with your assessment of the people I knew, at
that time. The group was balanced and down to earth, and devoted to spiritual
matters, and certainly not enmeshed in worship of an individual or person.



The cult label is a dismissive one, overused by critics who view the world
primarily through their own ethnocentric filter, or set of values. It is
certainly OK to disagree with eckankar’s paradigm, for whatever reasons, whether
based on scholarship, secular reasoning, or common sense, whatever that is to
you.



And it is important to raise the issues, particularly in view of the
significance of such revelations. Yet serious inquiry should rise above a
crusade to justify one’s own world view often enough at the expense of others
testimony of genuine experiences and spiritual practice.



A careful historical examination, however, will show that an era’s furor over
accusations of heresy, or a perceived deviation from some standard model of
social, philosophical or religious orthodoxy, whatever it may be, is only
intensified, by the emotional investment both sides bring to the arguments. That
intensity does not, however, say anything much about the discussion under
consideration, one way or the other.



And yet, a systematic revision, of a too literal belief in eckankar history, is
the very thing Twitchell’s outrageous methodology accomplishes, even in his
absence. It breaks down the usual conventions of authorship and a sacrosanct
history, yet still conveys a message about spiritual worlds, with its own
geography and personages and, I would contend, importance.



Whether one passes through the ordeal to the other side, to a realization of
ecknakar’s essence, beyond ANY system of realization or salvation, or whether
one remains firmly entrenched on the side of moral rectitude and indignation, is
another matter. History, however, is littered with many such controversies, and
also the educated and impassioned reports from either side. You be the judge of
which one is more real.



2.



It is daunting to observe the intensity and overstatement of but a fraction of
the real problem posed by Twitchell’s method of appropriation. Without regard to
Twitchell’s methodology and purpose, however, a purely polemical or linear
approach amounts to a missed opportunity.



Despite what others have announced as a forgone conclusion, a synoptic
interpretation of Twitchell’s body of work capable of recognizing his
accomplishment, and the 40 year existence of eckankar, is still lacking. Such
success cannot with justification be solely attributed to adherants’
intellectual naiveté or religious susceptibility.



It would be similar to saying Christians of the second century were members of a
cult opposed to the imperial government and sacrifice to the gods. That would be
to frame too literally the argument in the opponent’s terms. Who would today go
to a Baptist church and accuse members of being naive followers of a cult,
simply because the Pastorals, purported to be written by key figures of the
early church, were written instead in the second century.



The same standards of integrity and balance and perspective necessary to the
subject matter under consideration, apply as much to those who investigate.



And with respect to understanding Twitchell’s system of spiritual realities
there is much more work to be done here. That system succeeds independent of the
words and appropriated sources and continues to defy critics.



3.



When I was first introduced to eckankar in my teens and then in my early
twenties, I accepted as real the eckankar key to secret worlds. It went a long
way in answering my own spiritual journey. Later, like many of you, I wanted to
know the historical basis of Twitchell's system, and I hoped to research the
matter myself, at some later point.



This was long before the Internet and well before anyone around me had
considered the same questions that I had.



That desire beckoned me as a solution to my wish to reach beyond any system of
symbols and teachings. The desire sustained my intuition that eckankar was
itself, epistemologically, no different than Truth itself. So, like Truth,
eckankar must have a transfinite opening that led into something extraordinary.



It was something, however, that one didn’t wish to advertise, but rather should
conceal in a religious, or a spiritual road map, a manual, or a myth. It could
have real outer masters and inner worlds masters. It didn’t matter if you’d
experienced them.



Historical research confirmed that is indeed the standard in much of western
wisdom tradition. Could it also be possible that Twitchell had hit upon the same
idea, in a similar usage of myth as spiritual literature -- a foundation myth,
possibly?



As an experience in five-space, a spiritual system wasn’t possible to relate
entirely without resorting to symbols, or in eckankar’s case, histories and
masters. The compelling thing was that, to my knowledge, this little trick
necessitated by enfolding one space within another lower one of three
dimensions, let us say, didn’t seem to interfere with the internal system of
teaching. But, you had to “get it.” Therein lay the key to the controversy.



The controversy, was little more than the same door generally shut upon the
masses and requiring the same golden inner key to gain access.



Did Twitchell know about it? Did he essentially sabotage his own system for
thousands of seekers by appropriating from other sources, thus forcing the
reality question? Or was Twitchell only in a hurry to get his teaching out to a
willing public interested in spiritual things – a public only too willing later
to walk away at the least suggestion of difficulty or paradox?



Who knows. I am now at the end of my chapter. And I must get some lunch.



Have a good time with your own version of Truth. That key is the master, however
you conceive this.



Soundversion


eckankarhistory@yahoogroups.com wrote:Message: 1
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:44:31 -0000
From: "derekwilliams1974"
Subject: Re: plaigerism

It's true and there are some really fascinating articles documenting
his many plagerized passages.It's also wildly amusing but despite that
there are thousands of people who follow his works and get much benifit
from his writings.

I went to a meeting last summer when I was in Los Angeles and found the
followers to be well adjusted and intelligent people.The one I went to
was located on Sunset Boulevard.Anyone from that group have any
comments?


--- In eckankarhistory@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Cable"
wrote:
> Regardless of the number of paragraphs. Dishonesty is still a liars
> way of life. Paul Twitchell took from many sources and copied nearly
> word for word of the texts he plaigerized. In his original discourses
> and public books he never cited his sources. Troll



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]