"[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths he found on the inner planes into writing. He had a very difficult time figuring out a way to present Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or 1961. He said he had come across the teachings through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were difficult for him to bring out, because nobody cared. [....]"
Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with Kirpal Singh and others.
What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has not been proven absolutely true.)
However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account for even more confusion. Especially:
Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. The story of this trip has been recorded in my book "The Tiger's Fang."
[The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
So what is this? Can somebody please explain how Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
The following illustration appears to reference the January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first time. It reads:
(begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also among my writings are numerous discourses from many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner planes. I have talked with and taken down the words of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
In the entire article, there is no reference what- soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to Rebazar Tarzs?
It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
"Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the writings of Paul Twitchell?
> "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > cared. [....]"
> Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > Kirpal Singh and others.
> What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > not been proven absolutely true.)
> However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > for even more confusion. Especially:
> Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > "The Tiger's Fang."
> [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> The following illustration appears to reference the > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > time. It reads:
> (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > among my writings are numerous discourses from > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> In the entire article, there is no reference what- > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > Rebazar Tarzs?
> It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> Can somebody elaborate?
Lots of elaboration in the archives.
This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > cared. [....]"
> > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > The following illustration appears to reference the > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > time. It reads:
> > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > Can somebody elaborate?
> Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, any people whose names were replaced with names of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
Probably this happens because I had a tendency to take what was given as the history of the Eck Masters literally. Even when I was curious about Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, some of what I have seen appears still to conflict with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how can it be both? How can they be the words of people living in the physical, but two different people?
When I add to this the number of speeches by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask myself why?
I don't think that I am the only person to have wondered about this, and I imagine that members of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over this, or for similar contradictions that were not adequately explained to them.
Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he may have worked with and/or known Harold Klemp on some personal level, even though he had access to early Eckankar documents or transcripts that others have not seen, I do believe it matters for a current member of the path of Eckankar to hear commentary about Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What I mean is that some of the things Doug has mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds of things that I have ever heard Harold say. Attributing the writings of other authors or some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former teachers with Eck Masters for example. Even to the point of replacing their names. But were the names replaced by historical living people or historical myths, legends, and/or fables of historically living people? Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters in The Spiritual Notebook and his names of people who served as the "Mahanta Consciousness" as people knew it through- out history? Are these references all about historically living people? Or were some of the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness equivalent to legend and myth?
Personally speaking, some of what Paul Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not unique or never mentioned before. Moreover, some of those accounts of Earth history are what cannot be proven any more than the myths and the legends to which they pertain. In other words, what is common knowledge about the history of Earth and the Human Race does not always equate with truth. People once thought the Earth was flat and only a few thousand years old. They thought the planets revolved around the Earth instead of around the Sun.
I can kinda see how and why this would happen (changing names and quoting others - even common knowledge and giving the source as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar. It's quite possible that he has and that I just overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone will remind me more about it?
It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let the membership find out about some of the Eck history for themselves because it is more fun that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for the people who leave Eckankar because of it, or for those who remain mystified by what so many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or go there. IMO.
When people (some of which were members and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path or publicly portray the teaching as other than what is commonly-accepted dogma, I think it does reflect to some extent upon the current members when people who know nothing about Eckankar see some of what goes back and forth between members and non-members. For some people, I imagine that this is their impression of the path and anybody who belongs to it.
Why do you imagine that members of Eckankar for decades would leave the religion or path by this name? IMO it can't be such a small reason. IMO there could very well be something here worth looking at - if even to better understand people and their religious experience in general. Eckankar or not.
People don't leave for no reason. Nor do they write books that try to make sense of the con- tradictions.
I wonder if we can't all learn something from those who come and go from any particular path. Is it always that something is "wrong" with the people? Or has religious dogma and its literal intrepretation ever been flat out wrong, contradictory, and/or misleading at times in recorded history? What can we learn from this and how can it help people from different paths better find common ground? Or what is true for all religions?
Lot's of questions Etznab. No time or much interest to go there, now.
But I will tell you that I don't take things literally, as linear or as black or white. I am content with paradox and contradictions. Those are issues for lots of people. Others create different realities for themselves. Those are their problems. I've got my own to work with. But Soul doesn't have issues. I see it all from that perspective, as illusions in duality. Reality is more slippery than the mind's imagination. Each to his own. That's how I've sorted it out for my analytical mind anyway.
You have to sort it for yourself in your way too.
` o | ~/| _/ |\ / | \ -/ | \ _/____|___\_ Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
>> > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths >> > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had >> > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present >> > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of >> > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or >> > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings >> > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as >> > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar >> > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were >> > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody >> > cared. [....]"
>> > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according >> > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul >> > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied >> > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
>> > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living >> > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? >> > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with >> > Kirpal Singh and others.
>> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) >> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal >> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has >> > not been proven absolutely true.)
>> > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" >> > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With >> > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country >> > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account >> > for even more confusion. Especially:
>> > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when >> > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. >> > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book >> > "The Tiger's Fang."
>> > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
>> > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how >> > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even >> > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
>> > The following illustration appears to reference the >> > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he >> > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first >> > time. It reads:
>> > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation >> > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, >> > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. >> > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is >> > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to >> > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also >> > among my writings are numerous discourses from >> > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner >> > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words >> > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his >> > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body >> > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
>> > In the entire article, there is no reference what- >> > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell >> > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, >> > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation >> > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he >> > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" >> > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
>> > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to >> > Rebazar Tarzs?
>> > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared >> > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about >> > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh >> > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds >> > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
>> > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal >> > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the >> > writings of Paul Twitchell?
>> > Can somebody elaborate?
>> Lots of elaboration in the archives.
>> This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > any people whose names were replaced with names > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> Probably this happens because I had a tendency > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > living in the physical, but two different people?
> When I add to this the number of speeches > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > myself why?
> I don't think that I am the only person to have > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > adequately explained to them.
> Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > may have worked with and/or known Harold > Klemp on some personal level, even though > he had access to early Eckankar documents > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > believe it matters for a current member of the > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > Attributing the writings of other authors or > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > teachers with Eck Masters for example. > Even to the point of replacing their names. > But were the names replaced by historical > living people or historical myths, legends, > and/or fables of historically living people? > Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters > in The Spiritual Notebook and his names > of people who served as the "Mahanta > Consciousness" as people knew it through- > out history? Are these references all about > historically living people? Or were some of > the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness > equivalent to legend and myth?
> Personally speaking, some of what Paul > Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not > unique or never mentioned before. Moreover, > some of those accounts of Earth history are > what cannot be proven any more than the > myths and the legends to which they pertain. > In other words, what is common knowledge > about the history of Earth and the Human > Race does not always equate with truth. > People once thought the Earth was flat and > only a few thousand years old. They thought > the planets revolved around the Earth instead > of around the Sun.
> I can kinda see how and why this would > happen (changing names and quoting others - > even common knowledge and giving the source > as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard > Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar. > It's quite possible that he has and that I just > overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone > will remind me more about it?
> It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let > the membership find out about some of the Eck > history for themselves because it is more fun > that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for > the people who leave Eckankar because of it, > or for those who remain mystified by what so > many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or > go there. IMO.
> When people (some of which were members > and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path > or publicly portray the teaching as other than > what is commonly-accepted dogma, I think it > does reflect to some extent upon the current > members when people who know nothing about > Eckankar see some of what goes back and forth > between members and non-members. For some > people, I imagine that this is their impression of > the path and anybody who belongs to it.
> Why do you imagine that members of Eckankar > for decades would leave the religion or path by this > name?
> Lot's of questions Etznab. No time or much interest to go there, now.
> But I will tell you that I don't take things literally, as linear or as > black or white. I am content with paradox and contradictions. Those are > issues for lots of people. Others create different realities for themselves. > Those are their problems. I've got my own to work with. But Soul doesn't > have issues. I see it all from that perspective, as illusions in duality. > Reality is more slippery than the mind's imagination. Each to his own. > That's how I've sorted it out for my analytical mind anyway.
> You have to sort it for yourself in your way too.
> >> > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > >> > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > >> > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > >> > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > >> > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > >> > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > >> > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > >> > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > >> > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > >> > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > >> > cared. [....]"
> >> > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > >> > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > >> > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > >> > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> >> > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > >> > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > >> > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > >> > Kirpal Singh and others.
> >> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > >> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > >> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > >> > not been proven absolutely true.)
> >> > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > >> > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > >> > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > >> > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > >> > for even more confusion. Especially:
> >> > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > >> > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > >> > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > >> > "The Tiger's Fang."
> >> > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> >> > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > >> > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > >> > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> >> > The following illustration appears to reference the > >> > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > >> > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > >> > time. It reads:
> >> > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > >> > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > >> > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > >> > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > >> > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > >> > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > >> > among my writings are numerous discourses from > >> > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > >> > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > >> > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > >> > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > >> > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> >> > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > >> > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > >> > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > >> > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > >> > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > >> > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > >> > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> >> > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > >> > Rebazar Tarzs?
> >> > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > >> > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > >> > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > >> > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > >> > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> >> > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > >> > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > >> > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> >> > Can somebody elaborate?
> >> Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> >> This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> > When I add to this the number of speeches > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > myself why?
> > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > adequately explained to them.
> > Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > > may have worked with and/or known Harold > > Klemp on some personal level, even though > > he had access to early Eckankar documents > > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > > believe it matters for a current member of the > > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > > Attributing the writings of other authors or > > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > > teachers with Eck Masters for example. > > Even to the point of replacing their names. > > But were the names replaced by historical > > living people or historical myths, legends, > > and/or fables of historically living people? > > Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters > > in The Spiritual Notebook and his names > > of people who served as the "Mahanta > > Consciousness" as people knew it through- > > out history? Are these references all about > > historically living people? Or were some of > > the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness > > equivalent to legend and myth?
> > Personally speaking, some of what Paul > > Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not > > unique or never mentioned before. Moreover, > > some of those accounts of Earth history are > > what cannot be proven any more than the > > myths and the legends to which they pertain. > > In other words, what is common knowledge > > about the history of Earth and the Human > > Race does not always equate with truth. > > People once thought the Earth was flat and > > only a few thousand years old. They thought > > the planets revolved around the Earth instead > > of around the Sun.
> > I can kinda see how and why this would > > happen (changing names and quoting others - > > even common knowledge and giving the source > > as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard > > Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar. > > It's quite possible that he has and that I just > > overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone > > will remind me more about it?
> > It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let > > the membership find out about some of the Eck > > history for themselves because it is more fun > > that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for > > the people who leave Eckankar because of it, > > or for those who remain mystified by what so > > many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or > > go there. IMO.
> > When people (some of which were members > > and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path > > or publicly portray the teaching as other than > > what is
> Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to >Rebazar Tarzs?
> It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared >in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about >Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh >took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds >and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal >Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the >writings of Paul Twitchell?
> Can somebody elaborate?
>Etznab
It is obvious to anyone who has done any research into this that Paul wrote about some of his former gurus such Kirpal Singh in his earlier writings, and then later began to systematically change these names in later writings to some of his imaginary eck masters that he seems to have created as he began to formulate the basis for what was to eventually become eckankar. Unfortunately for Paul, some of the older writings were compared to the newer versions and the name changes were discovered. Paul Twitchell was a former student of Kirpal Singh until Kirpal Singh expressed disapproval over Paul's manuscript, The Tiger's Fang. Paul then later went on to form his own 'religion', declaring himself an 'eck master' by the authority of his newly created line of eck masters. one moment he is a student of scientology and Kirpal Singh, and he next he is an exulted 'eck master'. That speaks for itself.
>> Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to >>Rebazar Tarzs?
>> It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared >>in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about >>Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh >>took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds >>and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
>> "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal >>Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the >>writings of Paul Twitchell?
>> Can somebody elaborate?
>>Etznab
> It is obvious to anyone who has done any research into this that Paul > wrote about some of his former gurus such Kirpal Singh in his earlier > writings, > and then later began to systematically change these names in later > writings to some of his > imaginary eck masters that he seems to have created as he began to > formulate the basis for what > was to eventually become eckankar. Unfortunately for Paul, some of the > older writings > were compared to the newer versions and the name changes were discovered. > Paul Twitchell was a former student of Kirpal Singh until Kirpal Singh > expressed disapproval > over Paul's manuscript, The Tiger's Fang.
Yes, and rather that misrepresent what Kirpal disapproved of, he removed his previous mentions of Kirpal's name, long after he had started Eckankar.
> Paul then later went on to form his own 'religion', > declaring himself an 'eck master' by the authority of his newly created > line of eck > masters. one moment he is a student of scientology and Kirpal Singh, and > he next he > is an exulted 'eck master'. That speaks for itself.
It does. He finally found the right path for himself after a lifetime of studying many others.
` o | ~/| _/ |\ / | \ -/ | \ _/____|___\_ Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
> I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > any people whose names were replaced with names > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> Probably this happens because I had a tendency > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > living in the physical, but two different people?
So maybe Paul wrote down what he understood to be true, and in the process used some of what he'd read elsewhere. That's wrong from today's perspective using current standards of scholarship but as near as I can tell Paul wasn't and didn't want to be a scholar.
So what was it that he was driving at and what was his motivation? If you take him at his word, he was all about helping people find out for themselves what reality is, beneath the facade of social awareness that most people operate within.
Knowing this, would it be so out of character for him to demonstrate how some of the ideals and icons people are trained to idolize are not what they are claimed? To help people learn how, so to speak, discern the difference between fine marble statuary and a cheap plaster imitation.
Many of the people here seem to still have that lesson to learn and I've no doubt the Eck critics will contend that I'm one of them :-)
> When I add to this the number of speeches > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > myself why?
> I don't think that I am the only person to have > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > adequately explained to them.
> Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > may have worked with and/or known Harold > Klemp on some personal level, even though > he had access to early Eckankar documents > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > believe it matters for a current member of the > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > Attributing the writings of other authors or > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > teachers with Eck Masters for example. > Even to the point of replacing their names. > But were the names replaced by historical > living people or historical myths, legends, > and/or fables of historically living people? > Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters > in The Spiritual Notebook and his names > of people who served as the "Mahanta > Consciousness" as people knew it through- > out history? Are these references all about > historically living people? Or were some of > the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness > equivalent to legend and myth?
> Personally speaking, some of what Paul > Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not > unique or never mentioned before. Moreover, > some of those accounts of Earth history are > what cannot be proven any more than the > myths and the legends to which they pertain. > In other words, what is common knowledge > about the history of Earth and the Human > Race does not always equate with truth. > People once thought the Earth was flat and > only a few thousand years old. They thought > the planets revolved around the Earth instead > of around the Sun.
> I can kinda see how and why this would > happen (changing names and quoting others - > even common knowledge and giving the source > as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard > Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar. > It's quite possible that he has and that I just > overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone > will remind me more about it?
> It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let > the membership find out about some of the Eck > history for themselves because it is more fun > that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for > the people who leave Eckankar because of it, > or for those who remain mystified by what so > many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or > go there. IMO.
"Fun"? Maybe necessary.
Learning can be fun but it can also be painful. Dropping the ideas and ideals of social consciousness and group-think is more the latter.
> When people (some of which were members > and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path > or publicly portray the teaching as other than > what is commonly-accepted dogma, I think it > does reflect to some extent upon the current > members when people who know nothing about > Eckankar see some of what goes back and forth > between members and non-members. For some > people, I imagine that this is their impression of > the path and anybody who belongs to it.
> Why do you imagine that members of Eckankar > for decades would leave the religion or path by this > name? IMO it can't be such a small reason. IMO > there could very well be something here worth > looking at - if even to better understand people and > their religious experience in general. Eckankar or > not.
> People don't leave for no reason. Nor do they > write books that try to make sense of the con- > tradictions.
> I wonder if we can't all learn something from > those who come and go from any particular > path. Is it always that something is "wrong" > with the people? Or has religious dogma and > its literal intrepretation ever been flat out wrong, > contradictory, and/or misleading at times in > recorded history? What can we learn from this > and how can it help people from different paths > better find common ground? Or what is true > for all religions?
> Etznab
I wonder if a majority of Eckists actually approach this issue like there's something "wrong" with people who decide to part ways with Eckankar. I kind of doubt it but hey, maybe so. But based on what former members write here, it seems to me that most of them definitely believe that both Eckankar and current members have something wrong with them.
Personally, my approach to the parting of ways is "fit". If a teaching or group does not seem to match someone's personal approach then perhaps it's better to find one that does. Of course the seeming lack of fit might just be growing pains and temporary. That's why sometimes it's better not to burn the bridges crossed, just in case you might want to use them in the future. But then again, there's no incentive like a burning bridge to get one moving along. In the end the details always do get sorted out.
> > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> So maybe Paul wrote down what he understood to be true, and in > the process used some of what he'd read elsewhere. That's > wrong from today's perspective using current standards of > scholarship but as near as I can tell Paul wasn't and didn't > want to be a scholar.
> So what was it that he was driving at and what was his > motivation? If you take him at his word, he was all about > helping people find out for themselves what reality is, beneath > the facade of social awareness that most people operate within.
> Knowing this, would it be so out of character for him to > demonstrate how some of the ideals and icons people are trained > to idolize are not what they are claimed? To help people learn > how, so to speak, discern the difference between fine marble > statuary and a cheap plaster imitation.
> Many of the people here seem to still have that lesson to learn > and I've no doubt the Eck critics will contend that I'm one of > them :-)
> > When I add to this the number of speeches > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > myself why?
> > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > adequately explained to them.
> > Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > > may have worked with and/or known Harold > > Klemp on some personal level, even though > > he had access to early Eckankar documents > > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > > believe it matters for a current member of the > > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > > Attributing the writings of other authors or > > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > > teachers with Eck Masters for example. > > Even to the point of replacing their names. > > But were the names replaced by historical > > living people or historical myths, legends, > > and/or fables of historically living people? > > Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters > > in The Spiritual Notebook and his names > > of people who served as the "Mahanta > > Consciousness" as people knew it through- > > out history? Are these references all about > > historically living people? Or were some of > > the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness > > equivalent to legend and myth?
> > Personally speaking, some of what Paul > > Twitchell gave out for Earth history was not > > unique or never mentioned before. Moreover, > > some of those accounts of Earth history are > > what cannot be proven any more than the > > myths and the legends to which they pertain. > > In other words, what is common knowledge > > about the history of Earth and the Human > > Race does not always equate with truth. > > People once thought the Earth was flat and > > only a few thousand years old. They thought > > the planets revolved around the Earth instead > > of around the Sun.
> > I can kinda see how and why this would > > happen (changing names and quoting others - > > even common knowledge and giving the source > > as Eck Masters), but I haven't really heard > > Harold admit this much amounts to Eckankar. > > It's quite possible that he has and that I just > > overlooked it. In this case, perhaps someone > > will remind me more about it?
> > It's hard to imagine that Harold wants to let > > the membership find out about some of the Eck > > history for themselves because it is more fun > > that way? I don't imagine it is really so fun for > > the people who leave Eckankar because of it, > > or for those who remain mystified by what so > > many in Eckankar don't want to talk about or > > go there. IMO.
> "Fun"? Maybe necessary.
> Learning can be fun but it can also be painful. Dropping the > ideas and ideals of social consciousness and group-think is > more the latter.
> > When people (some of which were members > > and clergy of Eckankar for years) leave the path > > or publicly portray the teaching as other than > > what is commonly-accepted dogma, I think it > > does reflect to some extent upon the current > > members when people who know nothing about > > Eckankar see some of what goes back and forth > > between members and non-members. For some > > people, I imagine that this is their impression of > > the path and anybody who belongs to it.
> > Why do you imagine that members of Eckankar > > for decades would leave the religion or path by this > > name? IMO it can't be such a small reason. IMO > > there could very well be something here worth > > looking at - if even to better understand people and > > their religious experience in general. Eckankar or > > not.
> > People don't leave for no reason. Nor do they > > write books that try to make sense of the con- > > tradictions.
> > I wonder if we can't all learn something from > > those who come and go from any particular > > path. Is it always that something is "wrong" > > with the people? Or has religious dogma and > > its literal intrepretation ever been flat out wrong, > > contradictory, and/or misleading at times in > > recorded history? What can we learn from this > > and how can it help people from different paths > > better find common ground? Or what is true > > for all religions?
> > Etznab
> I wonder if a majority of Eckists actually approach this issue > like there's something "wrong" with people who decide to part > ways with Eckankar. I kind of doubt it but hey, maybe so. But > based on what former members write here, it seems to me that > most of them definitely believe that both Eckankar and current > members have something wrong with them.
> Personally, my approach to the parting of ways is "fit". If a > teaching or group does not seem to match someone's personal > approach then perhaps it's better to find one that does. Of > course the seeming lack of fit might just be growing pains and > temporary. That's why sometimes it's better not to burn the > bridges crossed, just in case you might want to use them in the > future. But then again, there's no incentive like a burning > bridge to get one moving along. In the end the details always > do get sorted out.
> -- > Ken- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for sharing that message Ken. I found it very insightful and pretty well written.
It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the information. I encourage you to keep digging.
I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > cared. [....]"
This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
> Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > Kirpal Singh and others.
Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what would their criteria be?
By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from someone else?
Just curious.
> What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > not been proven absolutely true.)
Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing? Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > for even more confusion. Especially:
> Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > "The Tiger's Fang."
> [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that same article:
<Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes came about. < <He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to strange lands I never believed possible.>
Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual discovery.
Why would David Lane leave this out?
I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what Paul was doing.
So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good, while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways and stopped mentioning his name.
That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
> The following illustration appears to reference the > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > time. It reads:
> (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > among my writings are numerous discourses from > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> In the entire article, there is no reference what- > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > Rebazar Tarzs?
Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed Kirpal's name.
Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly opposed to what he was doing.
So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing their own writings?
Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one. This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support it.
For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal.
In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh. Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one example.
Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters, does this resolve this confusion?
In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar Singh's names.
> "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> Can somebody elaborate?
The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters who visited Paul inwardly. They all visited him in his apartment. So, they are all similar.
> It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the > information. I encourage you to keep digging.
> I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
> On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > cared. [....]"
> This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul > mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest > I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that > Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
> > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say > this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what > would their criteria be?
> By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression > you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly > you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to > see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar > Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from > someone else?
> Just curious.
> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing? > Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK > initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions > Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that > same article:
> <Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for > years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes > came about. > < > <He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to > strange lands I never believed possible.>
> Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling > inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was > meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual > discovery.
> Why would David Lane leave this out?
> I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to > Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He > was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been > friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
> What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest > students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what > Paul was doing.
> So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good, > while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
> Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways > and stopped mentioning his name.
> That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
> More below about this.
> > The following illustration appears to reference the > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > time. It reads:
> > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in > book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and > magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a > number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed > Kirpal's name.
> Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't > be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly > opposed to what he was doing.
> So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing > their own writings?
> Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that > Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and > Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one. > This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support > it.
> For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes > you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these > matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's > Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who > opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he > had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting > Kirpal.
> In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh. > Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes > numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one > example.
> Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all > this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher > who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He > even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his > Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and > those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once > you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters, > does this resolve this confusion?
> In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of > masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
> Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine > it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like > Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions > Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar > Singh's names.
> > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > Can somebody elaborate?
> The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters > who visited Paul inwardly. They all visited him in his apartment. So, > they are all similar.
> Hopefully these comments help.
> Doug.
> > Etznab- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Looking for an exact date (the year would be fine) when Sudar Singh translated from the physical.
Currently, I don't believe Paul Twitchell received the Rod of Eck Power immediately after Sudar Singh
...
> It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the > information. I encourage you to keep digging.
> I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
> On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > cared. [....]"
> This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul > mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest > I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that > Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
> > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say > this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what > would their criteria be?
> By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression > you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly > you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to > see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar > Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from > someone else?
> Just curious.
> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing? > Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK > initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions > Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that > same article:
> <Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for > years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes > came about. > < > <He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to > strange lands I never believed possible.>
> Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling > inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was > meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual > discovery.
> Why would David Lane leave this out?
> I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to > Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He > was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been > friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
> What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest > students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what > Paul was doing.
> So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good, > while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
> Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways > and stopped mentioning his name.
> That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
> More below about this.
> > The following illustration appears to reference the > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > time. It reads:
> > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in > book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and > magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a > number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed > Kirpal's name.
> Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't > be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly > opposed to what he was doing.
> So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing > their own writings?
> Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that > Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and > Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one. > This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support > it.
> For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes > you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these > matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's > Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who > opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he > had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting > Kirpal.
> In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh. > Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes > numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one > example.
> Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all > this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher > who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He > even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his > Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and > those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once > you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters, > does this resolve this confusion?
> In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of > masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
> Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine > it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like > Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions > Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar > Singh's names.
> > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > Can somebody elaborate?
> The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters > who visited Paul inwardly. They all visited him in his apartment. So, > they are all similar.
> Hopefully these comments help.
> Doug.
> > Etznab- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Not equating it with an Eck initiation. What seems confusing (like I said) are the similiarities between Rebazar and Kirpal. The one I mentioned about the Tiger's Fang and Kirpal visiting Paul in his
...
> It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the > information. I encourage you to keep digging.
> I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
> On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > cared. [....]"
> This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul > mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest > I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that > Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
> > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say > this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what > would their criteria be?
> By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression > you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly > you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to > see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar > Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from > someone else?
> Just curious.
> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing? > Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK > initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions > Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that > same article:
> <Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for > years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes > came about. > < > <He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to > strange lands I never believed possible.>
> Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling > inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was > meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual > discovery.
> Why would David Lane leave this out?
> I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to > Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He > was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been > friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
> What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest > students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what > Paul was doing.
> So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good, > while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
> Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways > and stopped mentioning his name.
> That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
> More below about this.
> > The following illustration appears to reference the > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > time. It reads:
> > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in > book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and > magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a > number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed > Kirpal's name.
> Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't > be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly > opposed to what he was doing.
> So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing > their own writings?
> Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that > Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and > Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one. > This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support > it.
> For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes > you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these > matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's > Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who > opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he > had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting > Kirpal.
> In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh. > Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes > numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one > example.
> Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all > this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher > who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He > even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his > Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and > those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once > you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters, > does this resolve this confusion?
> In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of > masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
> Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine > it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like > Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions > Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar > Singh's names.
> > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > Can somebody elaborate?
> The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters > who visited Paul inwardly. They all visited him in his apartment. So, > they are all similar.
> Hopefully these comments help.
> Doug.
> > Etznab- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for sharing that viewpoint. I think it's a "fair" assessment.
> > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > cared. [....]"
> > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > time. It reads:
> > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> > This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > any people whose names were replaced with names > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> Probably this happens because I had a tendency > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > living in the physical, but two different people?
> When I add to this the number of speeches > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > myself why?
> I don't think that I am the only person to have > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > adequately explained to them.
I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this. Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as something that looked suspicious to them.
In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our own inner beliefs.
I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is true.
Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual account?
Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, but have taken The Far Country as something different.
So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience. These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he could.
In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to what it was really like.
> Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > may have worked with and/or known Harold > Klemp on some personal level, even though > he had access to early Eckankar documents > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > believe it matters for a current member of the > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > Attributing the writings of other authors or > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > teachers with Eck Masters for example. > Even to the point of replacing their names. > But were the names replaced by historical > living people or historical myths, legends, > and/or fables of historically living people? > Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters > in The Spiritual Notebook and his names > of people who served as the "Mahanta > Consciousness" as people knew it through- > out history? Are these references all about > historically living people? Or were some of > the Eck Masters or Mahanta Consciousness > equivalent to legend and myth?
Why does it make a difference to you if Harold said it or not? Are you interested in the truth? If you are, what difference does it make who says it?
Another question I have: What sort of truth are you looking for? Are you looking for facts from historical records, or are you looking for spiritual
...
> > > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > > cared. [....]"
> > > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > > time. It reads:
> > > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > > Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> > > This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> > When I add to this the number of speeches > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > myself why?
> > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > adequately explained to them.
> I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this. > Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their > reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as > something that looked suspicious to them.
> In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting > Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But > that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is > just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we > love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer > trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our > own inner beliefs.
> I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is > true.
> Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, > Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual > account?
> Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is > he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
> I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By > The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, > but have taken The Far Country as something different.
> So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar > work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that > somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, > and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
> I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was > much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing > spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience. > These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. > So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but > that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he > could.
> In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" > book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to > what it was really like.
> > Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > > may have worked with and/or known Harold > > Klemp on some personal level, even though > > he had access to early Eckankar documents > > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > > believe it matters for a current member of the > > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > > Attributing the writings of other authors or > > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > > teachers with Eck Masters for example. > > Even to the point of replacing their names. > > But were the names replaced by historical > > living people or historical myths, legends, > > and/or fables of historically living people? > > Like Paul Twitchell's line of Eck Masters > > in The Spiritual Notebook and his names > > of people who served as the "Mahanta > > Consciousness" as people knew it through- > > out history?
On 25 Mar 2007 18:54:38 -0700, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Etznab, >> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) >> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal >> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has >> > not been proven absolutely true.)
>> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like >> Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met >> Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
Here is an excerpt from a letter written by one of Kirpal Singh's followers in 1955 when Kirpal Singh was touring the USA. A 'Paul Twitchell' is mentioned in this letter as being a new initiate of Kirpal Singh.
" 27th Sept. Left Washington by Eastern Air Lines at 7:15 a.m. Nearly all initiates in Washington came to see Him off. Seeing their tears Master in all seeming innocence says "This is a pathetic scene." What else could it be? He had, as if cut their hearts out with a blunt knife and was taking their hearts away with Him. The pain of the separation and the bewildering emptiness awaiting them after His departure was ‘pathetic’. Landed at Boston Airport at 1:30 p.m. where Baron Frary von Blomberg and Mrs. Hickie were waiting to receive Him. The Baron took the Master in car and the rest of the party followed in another car to Brunswick Hotel where a suite of rooms were taken for the Master and separate rooms for the party. A Paul Twitchell and Annie Trussel, new initiates, had accompanied the Master from Washington. ... "
> On 25 Mar 2007 18:54:38 -0700, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Etznab, > >> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > >> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > >> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > >> > not been proven absolutely true.)
> >> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > >> Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > >> Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> Here is an excerpt from a letter written by one of Kirpal Singh's followers > in 1955 when Kirpal Singh was touring the USA. A 'Paul Twitchell' is mentioned > in this letter as being a new initiate of Kirpal Singh.
> " 27th Sept. Left Washington by Eastern Air Lines at 7:15 a.m. Nearly all initiates in Washington came to see Him > off. Seeing their tears Master in all seeming innocence says "This is a pathetic scene." What else could it be? He had, > as if cut their hearts out with a blunt knife and was taking their hearts away with Him. The pain of the separation and > the bewildering emptiness awaiting them after His departure was 'pathetic'. Landed at Boston Airport at 1:30 p.m. where > Baron Frary von Blomberg and Mrs. Hickie were waiting to receive Him. The Baron took the Master in car and the rest of > the party followed in another car to Brunswick Hotel where a suite of rooms were taken for the Master and separate rooms > for the party. A Paul Twitchell and Annie Trussel, new initiates, had accompanied the Master from Washington. ... "
> > > > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > > > cared. [....]"
> > > > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > > > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > > > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > > > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > > > time. It reads:
> > > > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > > > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > > > Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> > > > This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> > > When I add to this the number of speeches > > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > > myself why?
> > > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > > adequately explained to them.
> > I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this. > > Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their > > reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as > > something that looked suspicious to them.
> > In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting > > Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But > > that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is > > just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we > > love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer > > trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our > > own inner beliefs.
> > I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is > > true.
> > Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, > > Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual > > account?
> > Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is > > he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
> > I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By > > The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, > > but have taken The Far Country as something different.
> > So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar > > work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that > > somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, > > and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
> > I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was > > much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing > > spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience. > > These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. > > So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but > > that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he > > could.
> > In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" > > book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to > > what it was really like.
> > > Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > > > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > > > may have worked with and/or known Harold > > > Klemp on some personal level, even though > > > he had access to early Eckankar documents > > > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > > > believe it matters for a current member of the > > > path of Eckankar to hear commentary about > > > Eck history from Harold Klemp himself. What > > > I mean is that some of the things Doug has > > > mentioned or wrote about are not the kinds > > > of things that I have ever heard Harold say. > > > Attributing the writings of other authors or > > > some sayings of Paul Twitchell's former > > > teachers with Eck Masters for
Etznab wrote: > On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote: > > Etznab,
> > It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the > > information. I encourage you to keep digging.
> > I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
> > On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > cared. [....]"
> > This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul > > mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest > > I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that > > Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
> > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say > > this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what > > would their criteria be?
> > By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression > > you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly > > you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to > > see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar > > Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from > > someone else?
> > Just curious.
> > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > > Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > > Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> > However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing? > > Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK > > initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions > > Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that > > same article:
> > <Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for > > years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes > > came about. > > < > > <He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to > > strange lands I never believed possible.>
> > Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling > > inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was > > meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual > > discovery.
> > Why would David Lane leave this out?
> > I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to > > Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He > > was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been > > friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
> > What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest > > students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what > > Paul was doing.
> > So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good, > > while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
> > Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways > > and stopped mentioning his name.
> > That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
> > More below about this.
> > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > time. It reads:
> > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in > > book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and > > magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a > > number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed > > Kirpal's name.
> > Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't > > be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly > > opposed to what he was doing.
> > So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing > > their own writings?
> > Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that > > Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and > > Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one. > > This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support > > it.
> > For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes > > you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these > > matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's > > Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who > > opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he > > had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting > > Kirpal.
> > In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh. > > Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes > > numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one > > example.
> > Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all > > this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher > > who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He > > even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his > > Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and > > those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once > > you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters, > > does this resolve this confusion?
> > In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of > > masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
> > Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine > > it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like > > Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions > > Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar > > Singh's names.
> > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters > > who visited Paul inwardly. They
> On 25 Mar 2007 18:54:38 -0700, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Etznab, > >> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > >> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > >> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > >> > not been proven absolutely true.)
> >> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > >> Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > >> Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> Here is an excerpt from a letter written by one of Kirpal Singh's followers > in 1955 when Kirpal Singh was touring the USA. A 'Paul Twitchell' is mentioned > in this letter as being a new initiate of Kirpal Singh.
> " 27th Sept. Left Washington by Eastern Air Lines at 7:15 a.m. Nearly all initiates in Washington came to see Him > off. Seeing their tears Master in all seeming innocence says "This is a pathetic scene." What else could it be? He had, > as if cut their hearts out with a blunt knife and was taking their hearts away with Him. The pain of the separation and > the bewildering emptiness awaiting them after His departure was 'pathetic'. Landed at Boston Airport at 1:30 p.m. where > Baron Frary von Blomberg and Mrs. Hickie were waiting to receive Him. The Baron took the Master in car and the rest of > the party followed in another car to Brunswick Hotel where a suite of rooms were taken for the Master and separate rooms > for the party. A Paul Twitchell and Annie Trussel, new initiates, had accompanied the Master from Washington. ... "
> On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Doug" <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> > Etznab,
> > It takes time sorting through all of these issues and all of the > > information. I encourage you to keep digging.
> > I'll add some comments below. I hope they help.
> > On Mar 22, 9:30 pm, "Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > cared. [....]"
> > This is an interesting quote. I'd like to see the case where Paul > > mentions Eckankar in 1960 or 1961. I haven't seen that. The earliest > > I've seen was 1963. But I know there was a lot in Paul's files that > > Harold went through, which I didn't have time to see.
> > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > Etznab, I am a little confused by this question. How would you say > > this should be decided? Who would be able to answer this, and what > > would their criteria be?
> > By the kinds of questions you are asking, I don't get the impression > > you just want to hear someone's opinion. So, I'm not sure what exactly > > you were looking for. Is there some kind of record that you want to > > see that shows if Rebazar Tarzs was the Living ECK Master after Sudar > > Singh. Or were you looking for a quote from Paul? Or a comment from > > someone else?
> > Just curious.
> > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like > > Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met > > Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> > However, the question I have for you is why does this sound confusing? > > Is it because you are equating Kirpal's initiation with an ECK > > initiation? Can you clarify what part of this is confusing?
> > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > That same article you quoted above (The God Eaters) also mentions > > Rebazar Tarzs. Here is the part that David Lane didn't quote from that > > same article:
> > <Although I had been traveling in these invisible worlds for > > years it was only when Rebazar Tarzs took charge that many changes > > came about. > > < > > <He broke the barriers of the spiritual worlds and took me to > > strange lands I never believed possible.>
> > Notice two things here: Paul says that he had already been traveling > > inwardly for many years before meeting Kirpal. Second, that it was > > meeting Rebazar Tarzs that brought the big changes in his spiritual > > discovery.
> > Why would David Lane leave this out?
> > I think where the confusion comes in is that Paul was giving credit to > > Kirpal because of the friendship he thought existed between them. He > > was being generous in acknowledging Kirpal, since Kirpal had been > > friendly in all of their letters they had exchanged.
> > What Paul didn't realize until later was that to Kirpal's closest > > students he was bad mouthing Paul and clearly didn't agree with what > > Paul was doing.
> > So, here Paul was trying to promote Kirpal and make him look good, > > while Kirpal was doing the opposite to Paul.
> > Paul never publicly said anything against Kirpal. He just parted ways > > and stopped mentioning his name.
> > That's all there is to this whole thing, as far as I can see.
> > More below about this.
> > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > time. It reads:
> > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > Yes, this is true. Here's another way of putting it. Paul published in > > book form some of the articles he had published through newspapers and > > magazines years earlier. In the process he edited his articles in a > > number of ways. One of the changes he made was that he removed > > Kirpal's name.
> > Paul obviously wanted to continue using what he wrote, but it wouldn't > > be fair to mention an association with Kirpal, when Kirpal was clearly > > opposed to what he was doing.
> > So, the question is: Is there something wrong with an author editing > > their own writings?
> > Where I see the confusion coming from is when some people imagine that > > Kirpal was the Master who really taught all this stuff to Paul, and > > Paul was changing that to say that Rebazar Tarzs was really the one. > > This, however, is only a theory and it doesn't have much to support > > it.
> > For example, look closely at what Paul wrote above in those two quotes > > you printed. First, Paul says that Kirpal spoke <briefly of these > > matters> during Paul's inner voyage that he describes in The Tiger's > > Fang. As I pointed out, Paul also said that it was Rebazar Tarzs who > > opened up his inner travels to places he had never been before, and he > > had already been traveling inwardly for many years before meeting > > Kirpal.
> > In the second quote he says that he first studied under Sudar Singh. > > Later he studied with Kirpal. He also has recorded in his notes > > numerous discourses from many masters. He offers Kirpal as one > > example.
> > Nowhere in any of this do we see Kirpal as the Master who taught all > > this stuff to Paul. He is simply giving credit to Kirpal as a teacher > > who he wants to compliment because of their friendly relationship. He > > even says that is exactly why he has mentioned Kirpal's name, in his > > Flute of God piece that he wrote in 1959 and first printed in 1966.
> > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > Paul says he was visited by many masters both in physical bodies and > > those from the inner worlds. Is this the cause of the confusion? Once > > you realize that Paul was speaking about many inner and outer masters, > > does this resolve this confusion?
> > In other words, it isn't just Kirpal or Rebazar. It is a number of > > masters who all visited Paul and spoke to him inwardly.
> > Therefore, the confusion that I can see comes from those who imagine > > it was only Kirpal who taught this stuff to Paul. Then it looks like > > Rebazar was an after thought. But this isn't true, since Paul mentions > > Rebazar in his early article side by side with Kirpal and Sudar > > Singh's names.
> > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > The similarities are simply that these were just two of many masters > > who visited Paul inwardly. They all visited him in his apartment. So, > > they are all similar.
>>> Etznab, >>> > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) >>> > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal >>> > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has >>> > not been proven absolutely true.)
>>> Like you say, no proof has been made public, but it does seem like >>> Paul was initiated in 1955 by Kirpal. This was when he first met >>> Kirpal, during Kirpal's first American tour.
> Here is an excerpt from a letter written by one of Kirpal Singh's > followers > in 1955 when Kirpal Singh was touring the USA. A 'Paul Twitchell' is > mentioned > in this letter as being a new initiate of Kirpal Singh.
> " 27th Sept. Left Washington by Eastern Air Lines at 7:15 a.m. Nearly > all initiates in Washington came to see Him > off. Seeing their tears Master in all seeming innocence says "This is a > pathetic scene." What else could it be? He had, > as if cut their hearts out with a blunt knife and was taking their hearts > away with Him. The pain of the separation and > the bewildering emptiness awaiting them after His departure was > 'pathetic'. Landed at Boston Airport at 1:30 p.m. where > Baron Frary von Blomberg and Mrs. Hickie were waiting to receive Him. The > Baron took the Master in car and the rest of > the party followed in another car to Brunswick Hotel where a suite of > rooms were taken for the Master and separate rooms > for the party. A Paul Twitchell and Annie Trussel, new initiates, had > accompanied the Master from Washington. ... "
I find it tells us something about Paul that he was new to the teaching, yet was personally accompanying the Master.
It also seems the within the first year of study, Paul was living in the compound with Swami Premananda.
With L Ron Hubbard it's be said that Paul was one of the fastest ever to acheive the "clear" status. He quickly became one of the staff, was writing for the newsletter, and even writing training stuff.
` o | ~/| _/ |\ / | \ -/ | \ _/____|___\_ Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
> > > > > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > > > > cared. [....]"
> > > > > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > > > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > > > > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > > > > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > > > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > > > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > > > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > > > > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > > > > time. It reads:
> > > > > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > > > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > > > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > > > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > > > > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > > > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > > > > Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> > > > > This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > > > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > > > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > > > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > > > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> > > > When I add to this the number of speeches > > > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > > > myself why?
> > > > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > > > adequately explained to them.
> > > I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this. > > > Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their > > > reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as > > > something that looked suspicious to them.
> > > In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting > > > Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But > > > that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is > > > just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we > > > love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer > > > trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our > > > own inner beliefs.
> > > I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is > > > true.
> > > Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, > > > Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual > > > account?
> > > Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is > > > he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
> > > I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By > > > The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, > > > but have taken The Far Country as something different.
> > > So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar > > > work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that > > > somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, > > > and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
> > > I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was > > > much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing > > > spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience. > > > These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. > > > So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but > > > that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he > > > could.
> > > In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" > > > book, to leave the reader with the impression as close as possible to > > > what it was really like.
> > > > Doug Marman is not the Living Eck Master > > > > or the head of Eckankar Inc. Even though he > > > > may have worked with and/or known Harold > > > > Klemp on some personal level, even though > > > > he had access to early Eckankar documents > > > > or transcripts that others have not seen, I do > > > > believe it matters for a
> > > > > > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > > > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > > > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > > > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > > > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > > > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > > > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > > > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > > > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > > > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > > > > > cared. [....]"
> > > > > > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > > > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > > > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > > > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > > > > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > > > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > > > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > > > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > > > > > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > > > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > > > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > > > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > > > > > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > > > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > > > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > > > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > > > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > > > > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > > > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > > > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > > > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > > > > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > > > > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > > > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > > > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > > > > > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > > > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > > > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > > > > > time. It reads:
> > > > > > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > > > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > > > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > > > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > > > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > > > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > > > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > > > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > > > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > > > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > > > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > > > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > > > > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > > > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > > > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > > > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > > > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > > > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > > > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > > > > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > > > > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > > > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > > > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > > > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > > > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > > > > > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > > > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > > > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > > > > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > > > > > Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> > > > > > This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > > > > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > > > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > > > > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > > > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > > > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > > > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > > > > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > > > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > > > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > > > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > > > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > > > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > > > > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > > > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > > > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > > > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > > > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > > > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > > > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > > > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> > > > > When I add to this the number of speeches > > > > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > > > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > > > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > > > > myself why?
> > > > > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > > > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > > > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > > > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > > > > adequately explained to them.
> > > > I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this. > > > > Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their > > > > reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as > > > > something that looked suspicious to them.
> > > > In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting > > > > Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But > > > > that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is > > > > just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we > > > > love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer > > > > trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our > > > > own inner beliefs.
> > > > I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is > > > > true.
> > > > Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, > > > > Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual > > > > account?
> > > > Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is > > > > he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
> > > > I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By > > > > The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, > > > > but have taken The Far Country as something different.
> > > > So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar > > > > work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that > > > > somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, > > > > and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
> > > > I can relate to that. Although I always felt that The Far Country was > > > > much more like Stranger By The River. My reason: Paul is describing > > > > spiritual teachings here that are coming from a spiritual experience. > > > > These aren't things that come in English. They are inner teachings. > > > > So, I always thought these were Paul's words and his creation, but > > > > that he was trying to describe something real in the best way that he > > > > could.
> > > > In other words, he was writing the classic "as if you were there" > > > > book, to leave the reader with the impression as close
> > > > "[....] Paul was learning how to put the truths > > > > he found on the inner planes into writing. He had > > > > a very difficult time figuring out a way to present > > > > Eckankar to this society. The earliest mention of > > > > his use of the word Eckankar was about 1960 or > > > > 1961. He said he had come across the teachings > > > > through Sudar Singh in a general way as early as > > > > 1935, then studied them in depth with Rebazar > > > > Tarzs starting in 1951. But the teachings were > > > > difficult for him to bring out, because nobody > > > > cared. [....]"
> > > > Sudar Singh was a living Eck Master according > > > > to the Spiritual Notebook. And Peddar Zaskq (Paul > > > > Twitchell) followed Sudar Singh. Paul Twitchell studied > > > > "in depth" with Rebazar Tarzs starting in 1951.
> > > > I am wondering if Rebazar Tarzs served as Living > > > > Eck Master between Sudar Singh and Paul Twitchell? > > > > During the 1950s when Paul Twitchell met up with > > > > Kirpal Singh and others.
> > > > What sounds confusing (can someone clarify?) > > > > is to hear that Paul Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal > > > > Singh in 1955? (Although, to my knowledge this has > > > > not been proven absolutely true.)
> > > > However, that Paul Twitchell had "correspondence" > > > > with Kirpal Singh when he was writing Dialogues With > > > > The Master, The Flute of God, and The Far Country > > > > (not to mention The Tiger's Fang) might seem to account > > > > for even more confusion. Especially:
> > > > Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these matters when > > > > he took me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. > > > > The story of this trip has been recorded in my book > > > > "The Tiger's Fang."
> > > > [The God Eaters, Psychic Observer, November 1964]
> > > > So what is this? Can somebody please explain how > > > > Kirpal Singh got confused with Rebazar Tarzs? Even > > > > by Paul Twitchell himself??? Or is this propoganda?
> > > > The following illustration appears to reference the > > > > January 1964 issue of Orion Magazine, where he > > > > [Paul Twitchell] introduces Sudar Singh for the first > > > > time. It reads:
> > > > (begin iItalics text) "I began my study of bilocation > > > > under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in Allahabad, > > > > India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of Old Delhi. > > > > Both were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is > > > > called the Yoga of the Sound Current. I had to learn to > > > > leave my body at will and return, without effort. Also > > > > among my writings are numerous discourses from > > > > many master [sic], in the flesh and those on the inner > > > > planes. I have talked with and taken down the words > > > > of Kirpal Singh who appeared in my apartment in his > > > > Nari Raup, his light body, although his physical body > > > > was six thousand miles away in India." (end italics text)
> > > > In the entire article, there is no reference what- > > > > soever to Rebazar Tarzs. Yet, in 1966, when Twitchell > > > > republished the article almost verbatim in the booklet, > > > > Introduction to Eckankar, he changed the words bilocation > > > > and shabda yoga to "Eckankar"; and the two times he > > > > mentions Kirpal Singh, he changes to "Rebazar Tarzs" > > > > and "Sudar Singh" respectively. [....]
> > > > Is this true? Was Kirpal Sing's name changed to > > > > Rebazar Tarzs?
> > > > It looks confusing to hear that Kirpal Singh appeared > > > > in Paul's apartment and the same thing was said about > > > > Rebazar Tarzs. It appears confusing that Kirpal Singh > > > > took Paul Twitchell through the several invisible worlds > > > > and the same thing was said about Rebazar Tarzs.
> > > > "Why the apparent similarities between Kirpal > > > > Singh and Rebazar Tarzs? Even according to the > > > > writings of Paul Twitchell?
> > > > Can somebody elaborate?
> > > Lots of elaboration in the archives.
> > > This is one reasonable explanation backed up with timelines.
> > I'm trying to look at both sides and considering the > > possible ramifications if both perspectives were true.
> > Changing the name of Sudar Singh or Kirpal Singh > > to Rebazar Tarzs is still a "grey" area to me. In fact, > > any people whose names were replaced with names > > of Eck Masters contains some "grey" areas for me.
> > Probably this happens because I had a tendency > > to take what was given as the history of the Eck > > Masters literally. Even when I was curious about > > Rebazar Tarz speaking in King James English at > > times, my mind naturally wondered if this was not > > Paul Twitchell himself actually doing the speaking.
> > Even in spite of what Doug Marman has shared, > > some of what I have seen appears still to conflict > > with my initial "literal" interpretation of Eck Master > > history. The classic example in Ford Johnson's > > book of Vivekananda and Rebazar Tarzs giving near > > identical speeches [pp. 115-116]. I ask myself how > > can it be both? How can they be the words of people > > living in the physical, but two different people?
> > When I add to this the number of speeches > > by Rebazar Tarzs that contain words verbatim > > as are found in Julian Johnson's book from the > > 1930s, I have to wonder enough at least to ask > > myself why?
> > I don't think that I am the only person to have > > wondered about this, and I imagine that members > > of Eckankar (for decades) have left the path over > > this, or for similar contradictions that were not > > adequately explained to them.
> I have no idea how many people have left the ECK path because of this. > Those who have left that I have spoke to, didn't mention this as their > reason. Although once they left, I have heard some pick on this as > something that looked suspicious to them.
It is difficult for you, Doug, to comment accurately on why people leave eckankar, since you are not one to have ever walked in their shoes. Thus, it is no surprise you answer this as you have. The oddities and contradictions in eckankar writings are often precisely the reason people leave eckankar. When examined as a whole, the glaringly obvious ploy becomes evident.
> In other words, if you shift from trusting to Paul to distrusting > Paul, then everything starts to look suspicious. That's natural. But > that isn't Paul who is changing. That's their own attitude. This is > just human nature. We all tend to ignore the blemishes on those we > love, while we exaggerate the problems of those who we no longer > trust. This just shows how much our perceptions are affected by our > own inner beliefs.
What amazing sophistry. Doug, there is a thing called objectivity, in which one neither trusts nor distrusts, but just wants to know the real truth. When people can open their eyes and see with a modicum of objectivity, Paul Twitchell does appear to change from that of a high guru to that of a conman. Of course, PT was always a conman, and what is changing is the realization of that in the student's perpective.
> I think the challenge is to get beyond our own opinions to see what is > true.
Indeed. One person's truth is another's opinion. There are no referees who get to decide what is truth and what is mere opinion. I see your statements as your opinions. You may see your views as being beyond opinion. And that's your opinion, to state the obvious. So, we're back to where we started, unless you think you are a referee for the rest of us.
> Let me ask a question here: Do you have a problem seeing Paul's book, > Stranger By the River, as a poetic work, rather than a factual > account?
Here's the beginning of the principle direction in Doug's post. Let's see where he's going. Key theme: Poetry vs. fact.
> Do you think that Paul is quoting Rebazar's actual words there? Or is > he trying to communicate the teaching that he learned from him?
Key theme of this paragraph: Actuality vs. abstract teaching methods.
> I've noticed that a lot of ECKists readily accepted that Stranger By > The River was a fictionalized piece, much like Khalil Gibran's works, > but have taken The Far Country as something different.
Next movement in Doug's direction: Doug begins with "Stranger by the River" as a poetic work, then begins to apply the same description to The Far Country, which was never described as a poetic work by PT. Doug's key theme: The Far Country may be a poetic work, not factualy based.
> So, yes, when you come to realize that The Far Country is a similar > work of art, rather than a factual account, you might feel that > somehow you were fooled. I've seen people go through this reaction, > and then it becomes a trust issue for them.
Now Doug posits that one should "realize that The Far Country is a
...
