Talk:Paul Twitchell

Neutrality

This article is clearly biased, and features few, if any, reliable sources. As much of the information is clearly unsourcable (such as 'Paul passing on to the next realm' or whatever), it will be deleted from the article. Please help by cleaning up the article. Tachyon502 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Johnson, 98" does not in any way constitute a reference! These need to be expanded!! Tachyon502 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments such as "he had visited her in a dream to give his endorsement", "some have charged that he invented the religion", and "Much of Twitchell's life is shrouded in controversy and uncertainty." justify the banner. In addition, there are not references! The point of a reference is that it should allow me to locate an independent copy of the source - "Johnson, 98" does not allow this. A full and correct reference list is hence also required. Please do not remove the banner until these items are resolved. Tachyon502 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're an idiot. Reference #1 gives you the book that Johnson wrote. The article does not claim Twitchell visited her in a dream, it says "According to Gail." The references are there. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your abusive edit, I found it extremely constructive. Could you please tell me where I could find myself a copy of "Doug Marman, 2005"? The article does not meet wiki's guidelines on a neutral point of view. It is clearly biased and has been mostly edited by advocates of Eckankar pushing their own cult. The article requires an intense clean up as indicated by the banners. Please do not remove the banner until the multiple issues have been resolved. Tachyon502 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I studied Eckankar for a while in the 70's. I was a member when Darwin was the leader and up until he was removed.I came on board after Paul passed. I had a couple experiences with Paul (one in the physical and one in the dream state)Paul gave me proof that there is life after death and I believe in Paul 100%. I believe Jerry Miller (below) has it right. The truth is the truth even if it's taken from another source. Paul was and is a true master and an inspiration to me. What bothers me is that I believe there are people out there claiming to be masters and using Paul for personal gain. Paul twitchell preached against the occult practice of mediums. Paul does not speak through anyone in the physical. Avoid people who claim he does. Cheers

Kelly Martin, Madison Wi

I never knew Paul Twitchell on a personal basis but I came to know the man through his writings which made a great impression on me. I was especially moved by his poetry which seemed to express so much love - a higher kind of love. Somehow this came through his prose as well. People who have researched Paul Twitchell's life and who have found inconsistencies and evidence of plagiarism are completely missing what his life was about. Sometimes facts alone don't tell the full story. I am convinced that his mission was to bring love and light to a grossly materialistic world. He apparently spent most of his life getting ready for those 6 short years during which he was a living Master of the God Knowledge. My personal opinion is that because his time was so short, he used whatever means possible to accomplish his spiritual mission. Ultimately, it does not matter where truth comes from when we stumble upon it and are enriched by it. It doesn't matter who said it first. All that matters is that you found it at last and it's through Paul Twitchell's efforts that many seekers did find it. Who is to say that this was not part of some Divine plan which for some strange reason we find hard to comprehend?

-Jerry Miller, Columbia, Maryland USA

I am Sri Timothy Arnold and I was in Eckankar for seventeen years and loved Paul Twitchell also Jerry. To me, he was the greatest man that ever lived and saved my miserable life in 1971 when I first read "In My Soul I Am Free." I was in unbelievable spiritual pain before then wanting to be a priest at one time but never getting the proper feeling (vibe) from religion. Paul never called Eckankar a religion. That was Harold Klemp's doing in whom I am not an admirer albeit I know him personally (I also know Darwin Gross personally by name but a great admirer of Darwin Gross (although I believe he was not the master - eighth initiate) in whom I believe was greatly mistreated by Harold Klemp and Eckankar - they both know me because we all worked at the Eckankar International Office (EIO) in 1979). If you had read what I wrote in my edits of this site, you would know that my view is educated and spiritual since I have been doing Paulji's form of contemplation for thirty-five years. I am not a stupid man and also have a Ph.D. (English common Law). So, I am also highly formerly educated. I know what I am talking about regarding the details of Eckankar. It is a matter of the Eck (Sraosha in AKATHA). I did not want to break with Eckankar (1987), but to me Harold turned it into "love and God" which are not bad things, but the path was about Eck and Sugmad. These words are charged words (changed to "SRAOSHA" and "AKSHAR" in AKATHA (if you look in the Eckankar dictionary you will find these words are synonymous with the others - that is important because Paul Twitchell coined them and he was a true Master). In AKATHA, we consider Paulji a co-founder with me, since I owe everything I know to Paulji. But I do not believe Harold is a Master (higher Initiate, yes, but by not means a master). Since Harold is a higher Initiate, he has a lot of power and I have always admired his tranqulity and peaceful way. I like his vibration, but do not like what he says and Eckankar is not a religion, but it is now as of the false master Harold Klemp. My Wikipedia edits were objective and not derisive. They were informative and I do not appreciate them being omitted since I spent a lot of time on them last night. You can comment on my remarks here and also e-mail me at grnthghs@yahoo.com if you wish or call me at 913-766-4202 for the next few weeks. Later my permanent phone will be 215-951-2134.

P.S. Also, to clarify, the negatives that were written about Paul were not by me. I waa trying to fix all the wrong stuff that was said. But you perhaps thought I was the condemner on the page, but that was before me. To say I am a great admirer of Paulji would be the understatement of the new millenium.

'Sri Dr. Lord Timothy Martin, Arnold J.d.,L.c.m.D.,Ph.D Baron von Brauchitsch, the Mahaji, the 973rd Living SRAOSHA Master' Dr. Grantham Hughes talk October 11, 2006

I have added Dr. Grantham Hughes signature, even though it was a long time agoCoffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Similarity to the Sikh "Ik Onkar"

There is an uncanny phonetical resemblance with the sikh concept of Ik Onkar. I would not be surprised if Twitchell was inspired from this considering his relationship with Sant Kirpal Singh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.164.14 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Iwz at the Sikh church & out-reach in Southall (England) in 1995. They pronounced the phrase Ek Ankar. It instant:ly struck me that Eckankar is that phrase a little off plumb. R^∴W^∴Bro^∴ Froggo Zijgeb 22:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggo Zijgeb (talk • contribs)

The word Ekonkar is in Julian Johnson, 1939, The Path of the Masters. Also a discussion of the word Hu "The Supreme Word".

This article is pro-eckist

There seems to be a huge bias in this article favour of Eckankar. The way The Whole Truth gets referenced as "proof" that critics are wrong is one such example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

note: I just had my attempt to insert some balance into this article reversed as being "unconstructive", by FelisLeo, who cannot be contacted. That's thought control at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Or NOT

I don't disagree that there is some bias in this article, but, I wouldn't consider your one example "huge bias". Most of the article DOESN'T read as pro-Eckankar or pro-ECKist. Consistent references to Twitchell's writings from a business standpoint is not the standard woo-woo mythology of Eckankar. There are a number of historical references here that are not flattering to Eckankar or Twitchell's legacy. I am not sure what "balance" would look like but I would certainly appreciate accuracy and credible sourcing over speculation and opinion.

Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Hi, I would like to clean up and expand this page but am new to this and would like some help from an experienced Wikipedia editor in 'biographies'.

Little of the information comes from "reliable secondary sources"; how can I improve that utilise original sources (eg DOB info official docs) and minimize disputes with others pro/con Twitchell/Eckankar?.

A major source ref is " Marman, Doug. The Whole Truth - The Spiritual Legacy of Paul Twitchell. Spiritual Dialogues Project, 2007, pp. 48-53." This is a self-published work - the author is biased Eckankar/Twitchell apologist - has no experience/published works in such research - the source work includes unverifiable "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);" the source work contains unverifiable claims BY 3rd parties, living and deceased. the source work contains multiple errors of historical facts as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

Prior editors relying on The Whole Truth references appear to have "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." And are relying upon "original research" in that book. ref #33 Spiritual Dialogues Project | The Whole Truth - goes to a Book for Sale page - Plus the last external link url

As you can probably see, I have little idea what to do here, thanks for any help as I learn how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.81.172 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions about publication dates of listed books

I've read all the books on this publication list. I appreciate that the current copyright holder may have republished some or all of this list of books and that is what some of the publication dates stem from. I find this very misleading, however. I had read ALL these books by the late 1980s and most of them by the early 80s. Remember, Twitchell died in 1971. So by the early 80s most if not all these books would have seen multiple printings. I don't know how to get the correct publication dates for these books but thought it worthy of mention for the sake of clarity.

Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to address your concerns by updating the publications list with the dates of the first editions (with publishers) and later editions. Let me know if you have any more concerns.

MAA-Tech (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Paul Twitchell

Cyberbot II has detected links on Paul Twitchell which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/twitchell01.html

  Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Twitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ecka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512231704/http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_careers2.htm to http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_careers2.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Master Charan Singh of Beas on Paul Twitchell

Q. 27. Master, in Las Vegas there is a man by the name of Paul Twichell, who has written a book in which he makes many references to Sant Mat without using the term “Sant Mat”, and which includes some of the names. Are you aware of him? He teaches the Sound Current.

A. I have read the book. I don’t want to say anything against anyone. But, I personally think that what he has written was taken from our books. There is hardly a word in the book which is not referred to in any of our books.

Q. He was very clear to omit the term “Sant Mat”. Everything else was Sant Mat, but he didn’t use the term “Sant Mat.”

A. If you study this book and then study Philosophy of the Masters and Prof. L.R. Puri’s book, Mysticism, Part II, you will see that the words are exactly the same. The sentences have not even been changed. But, that may also be his own experience; I can’t say anything about it.

Q. I see good in most things, including myself, and I always thought that perhaps it was part of the Creator’s plan that a man like Paul Twichell should be here to help effect spiritual development.

A. Well, if it is part of a Divine Plan, the Lord knows His own ways and means of pulling a soul. I’ve nothing against this gentleman. I’ve nothing against anybody. As long as he talks about the teaching and talks about the same Lord, talks about the same thing, it is acceptable to us. It’s much better than talking about the worldly things.

– Thus Saith the Master: Maharaj Charan Singh’s 1970 round-the-world tour, 2nd edition, Punjab: Radha Soami Satsang Beas, 1975, pages 132 to 133. Out-of-print.

Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Master Kirpal Singh of Delhi on Paul Twitchell

Question : Too much fakery and too much commercialism?

Master : Yes, yes. Too much propaganda. I tell you one American was initiated by me–I’ve got the initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, “The Master’s Form appears to me inside.” That Form used to speak to him, dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Then later on he started a new movement.

Question : Yes, I’ve heard about him.

Master : Later he sent me another letter, “Return my book, The Tiger’s Fang.” That is what such-like people will do. They had some little thing, and got stuck fast there. Now he’s carrying on propaganda. He says he was never initiated by me. He was initiated in 1955. Some people get stuck fast on the way. This little ego is very difficult to get rid of unless there’s some kind of protection. This is a living example. He has written other books. I need not mention his name.

Question: I don’t think he mentions Your name either.

Master : I don’t think he would. Why say things about anyone? If any man does well, all right. I returned his book. That was dictated by me on inner planes, and that’s all right. He changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he changed it to another guru’s name.

– Kirpal Singh, Heart-to-Heart Talks, Volume One, Ruhani Satsang, 1975, page 53.

Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

First marriage date and location

THe article currnetly states that Twitchell married his first wife, Camille Ballowe, on August 12, 1942 in Providence, Rhode Island. This is cited to Johnson (2003:100.) I'm looking at Johnson right now, and while it does state that he married Ballowe in 1942, the exact date and location of the marriage is not mentioned. Anyone know where these details come from?Dolorite (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of Plagiarism

I suggest that the 2006 publication date for an article is misleading. "In a 2006 article" ... David Lane's 200 page xeroxed thesis on Eckankar was circulating widely among Eck members in the 1970s and caused a big exodus of members. He then published a book using the thesis (I presume) as basis in 1993. He is the chief verbal opponent of Eckankar but has outstanding academic credentials. A biased editing would try to downplay him. 2600:382:4A2:3FB4:4D02:DDD:AEF8:D569 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)