On Initiations and the Only Master (aside reference to a direct connection)
Santim Vah
ref:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/msg/0f0b019c89b8832f
part quote::
According to my notes, there is a letter in the files written by
Paul,
dated July 11, 1957.
He wrote:
"I have undergone a complete change within the last few days and the
climax came tonight around midnight..."
"I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost. I do not
believe that Master Singh has the correct teaching; nor that
Scientology can give the spiritual path of God."
He also wrote:
"I have not heard from Master Singh in months, and neither has he
been
with me for sometime. I have dropped my vegetarian diet, because it
does not seem to make sense anymore, and that I believe that God is
the Master - no one else."
[end quote]
-----
I found this recently on my PT history research travels .. [ it is
merely an aside quotation ]
QUOTE::
The conscious connection with God is not the privilege of certain
denominations or of a definite time. It was and always is a free gift
of God and it is granted to everybody who truly seeks for it.
What counts are solely the sincere efforts of the seeker in order to
live according to the original guidelines of the saints. In every age
provision is made to give the bread and water of life to those who
hunger and thirst for the truth; The conscious connection with the God
Power, which reveals itself inwardly as the Light of God and the Voice
(Sound) of God.
Guru Nanak was asked: Who is your Guru (Master)? He replied: Shabd
(Naam, the light and sound principle) is my Guru.
"God into expression" power is called Shabd or word made flesh as it
is written in the Bible. And who can give you the contact with it? You
can get it where his mercy is at work – that’s all.
Question: Is Initiation conveyed through an authorised representative
of the Master valid for all purposes?
Answer: Yes, the instructions of Initiation imparted through a duly
authorized representative of the Master are valid for all purposes.
The testing criterion is to have a first-hand inner experience of the
Divine Light of God and the Audible Life Stream at the time of
Initiation. These are the two Astral Forms of the Master-Power and if
one gets to them by personal experience of rising above body-
consciousness, there can be no doubt about its validity and efficacy.
(Sp.Exr. p.52)
The Master raises some initiated individuals and shows them the
splendour of the fifth realm (Sach Khand/Sat Nam Purusha); most of the
initiated are led up to this level.
However, as it is described, there is a total of eight realms, and the
eighth realm is the destination reached by those who get their final
completion. This faith occurs only in few; here a mightier power is at
work. They are faithful to it as a reaction of the past – not of the
present.
Thus, what I have seen so far and understood from the writings is,
that Shabd or the Holy Word is the only Guru.
Question: I just read an article that you wrote that said three or
four lifes. (to make it, to go home)
Answer: No, no, no, I say, even four stages of life can be passed in
one life. Therefore the completion of the way of the initiated soul
can be reduced to one birth only, depending on the disciple´s love,
faith and obedience towards the Master. *(recorded tape September 2nd
1970 )
God alone has the power to establish the connection with light and
sound. Nobody else is in a position to do so.
[end quote]
and that was from ??????????????????
scroll down for the answer
From :: Param Sant Kirpal Singh
INITIATION - The Deliberate Connection with the Divine Power
Full Ref. SEE
http://www.derallmaechtigekirpal.com/eng/kirpal/initiation/reise/6.html
AND THIS is what I *meant by* >
(aside reference to a direct connection) in understanding, knowledge,
teachings, concepts, systems, motivations, the beliefs of apparently
separate and distinct Masters and so on and on
Etznab
> Doug recently posted a note he had from a letter of Paul's.
>
> ref:
>
> AND THIS is what I *meant by* >
> (aside reference to a direct connection) in understanding, knowledge,
> teachings, concepts, systems, motivations, the beliefs of apparently
> separate and distinct Masters and so on and on
Then one has to ask the question why Paul Twitchell
would take his wife to be - Gail - to be initiated during
Kirpal Sing's 1963 world tour.
From the 1957 letter:
"I have undergone a complete change within the last
few days and the climax came tonight around midnight..."
"I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost.
I do not believe that Master Singh has the correct teach-
ing; nor that Scientology can give the spiritual path of
God."
This is another reason, I think, why it would be most
important to locate that original manuscript of T.T.F.
Paul sent to Kirpal Singh in 1963 and that (according
to him) Kirpal Singh later returned to Paul Twitchell.
"[....] Paul also wrote in his article 'The God Eaters,'
that appeared in the Psychic Observer, November 1964:
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."
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch._Two.htm
I think it was after 1964, not 1957, that Paul Twitchell
really had his major "falling out" with Kirpal Singh.
Then again, maybe not until 1966, according to other
sources I have seen.
"[....] The error that David made is that he thought
Paul started replacing names first in 1963, and that
this practice grew over time. In fact, all of the name
redactions took place in mid to late 1966, all at once,
which is when Paul suddenly broke off his commun-
ication with Kirpal and asked for his manuscript back.
[....]" [Based on: Old T.S. post by Doug Marman]
http://thetruth-seeker.com/vanillaforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=232&page=1#Item_0
Etznab
Santim Vah
>
> Then one has to ask the question why Paul Twitchell
> would take his wife to be - Gail - to be initiated during
> Kirpal Sing's 1963 world tour.
>
> From the 1957 letter:
>
> "I have undergone a complete change within the last
> few days and the climax came tonight around midnight..."
> "I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost.
> I do not believe that Master Singh has the correct teach-
> ing; nor that Scientology can give the spiritual path of
> God."
>
> This is another reason, I think, why it would be most
> important to locate that original manuscript of T.T.F.
> Paul sent to Kirpal Singh in 1963 and that (according
> to him) Kirpal Singh later returned to Paul Twitchell.
>
Why do you assume the "manuscript" was sent to or handed to Kirpal in
person in 1963? Is there an account of this, I can't remember.
Did David ever get a note of a date for that? Plus I am very inclined
to see things Doug's way, in that from Kirpal's own words that have
been told, Paul may well have sent Kirpal the DWTM, before he sent him
TTF.
If Kirpal got a copy of TTF, has he ever admitted to actually reading
it? I think from other things I have rad that by the time Paul could
have sent Kirpal a copy of the TTF .. it would have been at least
1958. I can think of no reason for Paul not to send it asap.
I see any problems at all about Paul's comments in that letter, and
either staying friendly with Kirpal, and his satsangis, or even
staying as a chela himself for a time ... as reported by Harold ..
Paul is known to have changed his mind almost 180 degrees, and back
again. I know i have ! <vbg>
This to me is all quite normal, in the real world. We all change our
minds and opinions -- some more than others sure, and we all have
shifts away from an idea for a years and then for personal reasons and
things that occur come back to it again and it works better this time
around. .. this is all normal. Paul appears quite normal, for Paul,
imho.
And even if by the time 1963 came along , that Paul had truly moved
past a belief in Kirpal as a true master, this doesn't preclude him
taking Gail along in late 1963 for the "experience" itself, and to see
how others were in that group.
Reading between the lines of the LTG series, I get a sense that Paul
took Gail out to such events meetings etc whenever possible. I think
it's called an excuse for a "date" even -- who knows exactly, besides
Gail herself? :)
cheers sean
Santim Vah
Maybe it was a complete misunderstanding and a communication
breakdown?
Maybe Paul never ever sent Kirpal TTF, but sent him the DWTM by
mistake or soemthing ... or he sent him both, but the TTF never
arrived .
Kirpal gets confused about letters talking about a manuscript, and it
all gets too much from the brash unrelenting letter writer from
Kentucky ... you know, just got sick of Paul? It's possible, given
Kirpal said he didn;t quite accept the info Paul was sending to him
anyway.
We need to view this, and frame this in a way that actually makes
SENSE TO KIRPAL'S POSITION, and also not assume the "story" we have
been told is actually as accurate as it sounds .. things DO get
confused between friends and falling outs occur by pure chance and
mistakes, and often assumptions more than anything. Wrong assumptions
that is!
Just because paul T thought that X was the case, doesn't mean it was.
to continually just assume [ and I this is not a personal comment to
etznab ] he was 100% right about this TTF incident is going to far,
imho. A little wiggle room should be left, and Kirpal given the
benefit of the doubt at least.
Santim Vah
> Doug recently posted a note he had from a letter of Paul's.
>
>
> He wrote:
>
> "I have undergone a complete change within the last few days and the
> climax came tonight around midnight..."
>
> "I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost. I do not
> believe that Master Singh has the correct teaching; nor that
> Scientology can give the spiritual path of God."
>
>
> [end quote]
>
> From :: Param Sant Kirpal Singh
> INITIATION - The Deliberate Connection with the Divine Power
>
>
> There is a small ensemble outside where I sit this moment practicing.
> The beat sways in and out like the vibration of Soul second initiates
> learn--a gentle back and forth rhythm. Over and Over.
>
> ...your post above could just be the fuel that consumes you next. It
> just came to me this way.
>
> BCNGU
>
> John
Nope, you lost me JR ??? Please dumb it down for down-under! :)
Santim Vah
> > > Thanks Sean:
>
> > > There is a small ensemble outside where I sit this moment practicing.
> > > The beat sways in and out like the vibration of Soul second initiates
> > > learn--a gentle back and forth rhythm. Over and Over.
>
> > > ...your post above could just be the fuel that consumes you next. It
> > > just came to me this way.
>
> > > BCNGU
>
> > > John
>
> > Nope, you lost me JR ??? Please dumb it down for down-under! :)
>
> Sri Paul's words are about him on his own quest which we also share in
> common.
Yes JR, very much so.
> Identifying with him in his moments of unfoldment may inspire
> us if we contemplate our own life circumstances and what led us to be
> recognized by God in the process of initiation.
>
It can be like this .. it's a choice. My pov is that in the early days
of my own time, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd are far more significant and long-
serving than I knew, or could have known at the time. Maybe the
reverse of the usual phrase "there but for the grace of go I"
> It came to me, the fuel of thought in his words above may consume you
> to aspire and achieve similar circumstances. The music ouside my
> window where I sat had a sway to it like I read about in the first
> chapter of one of the Shariyats-first one I think. Maybe vol. 2
> chapter 1. Notions can trigger the chemistry in our bodies to go out
> and do things that surprise us. That sway is Soul enjoying ITs
> polarities. Opening our mind and heart to Soul. The music triggered me
> into sharing my reaction with you about your post and my live setting.
>
> John
>
> Be Seeing You
Thankyou JR :)
When TV first came out here there was a kids show called Romper Room
[ very different from Romper Stomper - how things have changed ] the
"lady" in the show which was setup like a kindergarten with a dozen
kids on each day with her ... at the end of the show she had this
magic mirror JR ..... she would hold it up to her face but we on the
other side of the TV could straight thru it and see her still.
The she would list a number of kids watching by name .. I can see you
wendy, oh, and I can see you jack, and you too jane.
In the mid 60's with a name such as Sean .. I had NO CHANCE MATE --
but stopped to listen everyday just in case!!! It was a hard life for
me I can tell you. <G>
Anyway ........... I can see you too John !
Doug
Sean,
This is just a guess, but I think that it is possible that what Kirpal
read was the letters that Paul sent to him starting in 1955, where he
describes his inner experiences with The Master's Form, as Kirpal
called it.
Kirpal read these, and some of these may have ended up in Dialogues
With The Master.
This is where Kirpal got the idea that The Tiger's Fang was about
inner experiences that happened through dreams, which was one of the
main things that he criticized Paul over.
Go back to Dialogues With The Master and read the way Paul describes
his inner experiences. I found it interesting that the first few did
indeed describe starting from a dream. But then after that, they
became waking experiences.
So, imagine Kirpal reading some of these letters and after a few come
with dream experience, and Kirpal firmly believed that dreams were not
real experiences and should not be counted as inner experience, he
stops reading anything else Paul wrote. Or maybe the idea of
everything Paul experienced was a dream experience became stuck in
Kirpal's mind.
Then in 1963 (Kirpal quoted the year) Paul sends him a copy of TTF.
And Kirpal comments to his closest followers that Paul's experiences
weren't genuine, because they were dream experiences. But TTF doesn't
describe dream experiences at all. So, why would he say that in 1963
after receiving TTF? Probably because he had formed that opinion in
1955.
The other reason I suggested this connection was because Kirpal
describes TTF as a record of Paul's dialogues with the Master's Form,
which is not what TTF was, but it is what Dialogues With The Master
was.
So, for these two reason, I think there is some good reason to think
that Kirpal may not have even read TTF.
Oh, one other connection: In an article that Paul wrote around this
time, he said that he had written about dialogues with masters he had
inwardly and put these into a book. So, if Kirpal read this, then he
could have assumed this is what TTF was, not realizing that Paul was
describing a different book completely. And from what I've heard of
Kirpal, he would have heard about everything Paul wrote in those early
days, since he did keep track of his followers and he and Paul were
still writing to each other.
The question about Paul taking Gail to see Kirpal and getting the
initiation, this sounds incredibly similar to what Paul did with his
first wife, Camille. He took her to a whole series of churches and
teachers, to bring her up to speed with what he had been studying. We
saw this in the letters she wrote back to Paul while he was in the
Navy.
These are all of course just guesses.
Doug.
Etznab
Adding to the guesses. I wondered why DWTM is so similar
to TTF with regard to the "God-Consciousness" experience?
Where Paul meets the rulers of the higher planes. Did he do
this twice? Or was TTF a rewrite of DWTM? It wouldn't, IMO,
be the first time Paul Twitchell used some of the "same"
materials for more than one of his books. This is one guess.
Also, DWTM has a talk by Rami Nuri which includes text
(in part) looking very similar to text written in The Path Of The
Masters, by Julian Johnson. The content & the order are very
similar in one section.
My guess is that Paul Twitchell's "Inner Master" was his
own "Higher Self" and not a living physical master. Maybe
that which instructed him what to write was his very own
conscience recounting things he had read? A conscience
that led him to consume large quantities of books and to
join so many different spiritual groups?
Of course, I would still vote for Rebazar Tarzs to be a real
historical person. However, I haven't proven that to myself
beyond a doubt (at this time). So I'm naturally skeptical at
this point.
Etznab
Etznab
>
>
>
> > but I think that it is possible that what Kirpal
> > read was the letters that Paul sent to him starting in 1955, where he
> > describes his inner experiences with The Master's Form, as Kirpal
> > called it.
>
> > Kirpal read these, and some of these may have ended up in Dialogues
> > With The Master.
>
> > This is where Kirpal got the idea that The Tiger's Fang was about
> > inner experiences that happened through dreams, which was one of the
> > main things that he criticized Paul over.
>
> > Go back to Dialogues With The Master and read the way Paul describes
> > his inner experiences. I found it interesting that the first few did
> > indeed describe starting from a dream. But then after that, they
> > became waking experiences.
>
>
> > So, imagine Kirpal reading some of these letters and after a few come
> > with dream experience, and Kirpal firmly believed that dreams were not
> > real experiences and should not be counted as inner experience, he
> > stops reading anything else Paul wrote.
>
> Kirpal's pov, a sensible thing to do.
>
> AND "friends" and even masters don't automatically go out of their way
> to mention every thing they disagree with. Meaning, Paul may well have
> been in the dark for over 10 years before he *finally* realised that
> Kirpal, via his US leaders was being very critical of Paul's *beliefs*
> and *practices*.
>
> So, switching to Paul's "frame" now, and where sees himself, this
> *could have * come as a complete *shocker* to Paul, and thus issues
> such as feelings of betrayal etc could arise. As in Paul *could* have
> thought to himself :: "Gee why didn't Kirpal ever mention this to
> me .. gee he had my postal address for 10 years ???
>
> thought, Paul *could* have also not really cared much at all about the
> whole thing, or Kirpal's opinions anymore. -- but all this is too a
> *guess* at possibilities.
>
> > Or maybe the idea of
> > everything Paul experienced was a dream experience became stuck in
> > Kirpal's mind.
>
> He wasn't the later well known Mahanta the LEM as he was in 1971.
>
> From Kirpal's pov .... Paul is a completely different person than any
> Eckist [incl harold] who is doing research about Paul would see Paul
> as.
>
> > Then in 1963 (Kirpal quoted the year) Paul sends him a copy of TTF.
> > And Kirpal comments to his closest followers that Paul's experiences
> > weren't genuine, because they were dream experiences.
>
>
> > But TTF doesn't
> > describe dream experiences at all. So, why would he say that in 1963
> > after receiving TTF? Probably because he had formed that opinion in
> > 1955.
>
> I have learnt to be very cautious around your "probably because"
> comments Doug. There's a pattern there .. where probably because" has
> sometimes morphed a year or more later into "well, what we know is" -
> when i reality we still don't. :)
>
> So, YES, he *could have formed* that opinion as far back as 1955 - but
> it may still be utterly irrelevant to the issues of dreams in 1955.
>
> Why? because Kirpal may well as come to this view in 1957, OR 1959, OR
> even in 1963 when Kirpal SAW Paul in the flesh when taking Gail along
> to her Ruhani Satsang Initiation with Kirpal.
>
> Paul may equally have "handed him TTF in the flesh in 1963" and said
> things about it .. or Kirpal may well have questioned him about it
> too. We do NOT really know, do we?
>
> > The other reason I suggested this connection was because Kirpal
> > describes TTF as a record of Paul's dialogues with the Master's Form,
> > which is not what TTF was, but it is what Dialogues With The Master
> > was.
>
> referring to DWTM, or some other compiled manuscript or group of
> artciles/letters that Paul may have sent him.
>
> Most of these ideas go back what was the initial piece of info that
> was spoken about, and how was that framed originally. In this case re
> TTF manuscript there is not enough info for me to know for sure what
> *Kirpal* was about.
>
> 99% of the time over the last decade plus .. I have seen short quotes
> from Kirpal followed by long explanations from all sides of the issue.
> As mentioned previously, I have tried now to just dump all these prior
> ideas from my memory banks, and have started from scratch to look at
> the history as a "clean slate" with "fresh eyes" again.
>
> I think this approach is working well thus far.
>
> > So, for these two reason, I think there is some good reason to think
> > that Kirpal may not have even read TTF.
>
> being quite possible, in fact quite probable. How many people believe
> that Harold read all the info that Ford sent him, or the Open letters,
> or the book Confessions? There is an operative MO under such
> circumstances imho. :)
>
> However, apparently there is a detailed talk by Kirpal to Satsangis
> about the TTF book and Paul's new teaching. I have heard of this
> before, or perhaps seen short quotes from it, but can't recall if the
> full transcript has ever been shared here, or if you have it
> yourself.
>
> OK, so we are going for the ORIGINAL Copy ... it;s been ordered and
> awaiting a notice that they have shipped it. let's see what Kirpal
> says in his own words?
>
> > Oh, one other connection: In an article that Paul wrote around this
> > time, he said that he had written about dialogues with masters he had
> > inwardly and put these into a book. So, if Kirpal read this, then he
> > could have assumed this is what TTF was, not realizing that Paul was
> > describing a different book completely. And from what I've heard of
> > Kirpal, he would have heard
>
>
> read more »
"Paul may equally have "handed him TTF in the flesh
in 1963" and said things about it .. or Kirpal may well
have questioned him about it too. We do NOT really
know, do we?"
I'm not sure if this helps, or not.
For a few years Paul was a member of Swami Premananda's
church in Washington, D.C. When that association ended,
he came in contact with the works of Kirpal Singh, who was
based in India at the time. Paul had some experiences in
which Kirpal Singh came to him in his room. They began to
correspond. When Paul wrote to tell Kirpal Singh about the
series of discourses he was working on, Kirpal Singh replied:
"Let's see what you have. Perhaps we can use them."
Paul was a prolific writer. Kirpal Singh was very interested
in Paul's account of his experience in The Tiger's Fang [<
in italics] and he even offered suggestions. [....]
Based on: Article (Struggle for mastership) @
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html
Maybe checking out that article will add something to this
present line of query? Me thinks so.
Etznab
Etznab
> It wouldn't, IMO,
> be the first time Paul Twitchell used some of the "same"
> materials for more than one of his books. This is one guess.
>
>
> I support your view here, as it is clear to me that Paul continually
> re-used, and re-editied his own writings all over the place.
>
> A visual ... to me Paul is like a Donut Making Machine -- in the big
> holding pot above the cooking oil is all this TEXT that is being
> stirred and mixed around at the READY.
>
> Then in THE moment, Paul needs an article, a discourse, a booklet, or
> a talk .... so he goes to the Donut making machine and hits the button
> and PLONK .. out pops a Donut and sets in the hot oil, Paul edits it
> slightly .. which is to say he adds the cinnamon and sugar, places it
> in a new fresh take-away bag, smiles and says, thanks that will be a
> Nickle. <smile>
>
> It's important to remember that in this imaginary scene that it IS
> Paul who is the one who chose what flour and water to use, and in what
> % to get the *mix* right. he selected the source "materials" in other
> words -- IN THE MOMENT, and for the purpose.
>
> Therefore I have over the years seen this at work everywhere in ALL
> his writings. UI ahve seen paragraphs and section of the Shariyat
> books, used in Discourses .. but the discourses were edited and
> different on a point or two.
>
> Things in DWTM will end up in an IWL wisdom note. TTF is in the
> Shariyat in parts.
>
> part of the Shariyat is in the Eck Vidya ..., and in an article, or an
> article is in the Shariyat years later.
>
> Original early manuscripts were edited to became discourses -- the
> discourses were re=-packaged into a new book and again EDITED, or
> sections from other manuscripts added there, but not in the
> Discourses.
>
> On and on it goes .. this is what Paul did, imho. And it was already
> the case that he was doing it in 1956, and very much so in his LTG
> series too .. so much of that has ended up as paragraphs in other
> books ... and discourses, and vice-versa.
>
> Harold seems to have taken a similar route .. where his talks become
> sold live online, then a A4 booklet each year, then a video of the
> seminar, then re-packaged into books, and then parts included in
> Discourses, and then into an audio-book, and on it goes .... could
> this be an example of the Law of Economy?
>
> Personally I can't afford it all, as it extends outside my own Law of
> Economy. :)
>
> cheers sean
>
> It was an endless re-packaging of the core source knowledge base,
> that's how I would put it.
Some of that post was articulated very, very well. In my opinion it
could win an award!
Etznab
Doug
>
> Maybe checking out that article will add something to this
> present line of query? Me thinks so.
>
> Etznab
Etznab,
Those are interesting comments that Harold made about Kirpal and his
interaction with Paul.
However, the questions he asks Paul to ask the masters don't give any
indication he read TTF. In fact, they once again sound more like DWTM.
One day many of these letters than Harold read will be accessible,
hopefully. It will probably fill in the picture a bit more.
Thanks.
Doug.
Doug
> On Feb 7, 11:01 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > read was the letters that Paul sent to him starting in 1955, where he
> > describes his inner experiences with The Master's Form, as Kirpal
> > called it.
>
> > Kirpal read these, and some of these may have ended up in Dialogues
> > With The Master.
>
> > This is where Kirpal got the idea that The Tiger's Fang was about
> > inner experiences that happened through dreams, which was one of the
> > main things that he criticized Paul over.
>
> > Go back to Dialogues With The Master and read the way Paul describes
> > his inner experiences. I found it interesting that the first few did
> > indeed describe starting from a dream. But then after that, they
> > became waking experiences.
>
>
> > with dream experience, and Kirpal firmly believed that dreams were not
> > real experiences and should not be counted as inner experience, he
> > stops reading anything else Paul wrote.
>
> Kirpal's pov, a sensible thing to do.
>
> AND "friends" and even masters don't automatically go out of their way
> to mention every thing they disagree with. Meaning, Paul may well have
> been in the dark for over 10 years before he *finally* realised that
> Kirpal, via his US leaders was being very critical of Paul's *beliefs*
> and *practices*.
>
> So, switching to Paul's "frame" now, and where sees himself, this
> *could have * come as a complete *shocker* to Paul, and thus issues
> such as feelings of betrayal etc could arise. As in Paul *could* have
> thought to himself :: "Gee why didn't Kirpal ever mention this to
> me .. gee he had my postal address for 10 years ???
>
> thought, Paul *could* have also not really cared much at all about the
> whole thing, or Kirpal's opinions anymore. -- but all this is too a
> *guess* at possibilities.
>
> > everything Paul experienced was a dream experience became stuck in
> > Kirpal's mind.
>
> He wasn't the later well known Mahanta the LEM as he was in 1971.
>
> From Kirpal's pov .... Paul is a completely different person than any
> Eckist [incl harold] who is doing research about Paul would see Paul
> as.
>
> > And Kirpal comments to his closest followers that Paul's experiences
> > weren't genuine, because they were dream experiences.
>
>
> > But TTF doesn't
> > describe dream experiences at all. So, why would he say that in 1963
> > after receiving TTF? Probably because he had formed that opinion in
> > 1955.
>
> I have learnt to be very cautious around your "probably because"
> comments Doug. There's a pattern there .. where probably because" has
> sometimes morphed a year or more later into "well, what we know is" -
> when i reality we still don't. :)
>
> So, YES, he *could have formed* that opinion as far back as 1955 - but
> it may still be utterly irrelevant to the issues of dreams in 1955.
>
> Why? because Kirpal may well as come to this view in 1957, OR 1959, OR
> even in 1963 when Kirpal SAW Paul in the flesh when taking Gail along
> to her Ruhani Satsang Initiation with Kirpal.
>
> Paul may equally have "handed him TTF in the flesh in 1963" and said
> things about it .. or Kirpal may well have questioned him about it
> too. We do NOT really know, do we?
>
> > describes TTF as a record of Paul's dialogues with the Master's Form,
> > which is not what TTF was, but it is what Dialogues With The Master
> > was.
>
> referring to DWTM, or some other compiled manuscript or group of
> artciles/letters that Paul may have sent him.
>
> Most of these ideas go back what was the initial piece of info that
> was spoken about, and how was that framed originally. In this case re
> TTF manuscript there is not enough info for me to know for sure what
> *Kirpal* was about.
>
> 99% of the time over the last decade plus .. I have seen short quotes
> from Kirpal followed by long explanations from all sides of the issue.
> As mentioned previously, I have tried now to just dump all these prior
> ideas from my memory banks, and have started from scratch to look at
> the history as a "clean slate" with "fresh eyes" again.
>
> I think this approach is working well thus far.
>
> > that Kirpal may not have even read TTF.
>
> being quite possible, in fact quite probable. How many people believe
> that Harold read all the info that Ford sent him, or the Open letters,
> or the book Confessions? There is an operative MO under such
> circumstances imho. :)
>
> However, apparently there is a detailed talk by Kirpal to Satsangis
> about the TTF book and Paul's new teaching. I have heard of this
> before, or perhaps seen short quotes from it, but can't recall if the
> full transcript has ever been shared here, or if you have it
> yourself.
>
> OK, so we are going for the ORIGINAL Copy ... it;s been ordered and
> awaiting a notice that they have shipped it. let's see what Kirpal
> says in his own words?
>
> > time, he said that he had written about dialogues with masters he had
> > inwardly and put these into a book. So, if Kirpal read this, then he
> > could have assumed this is what TTF was, not realizing that Paul was
> > describing a different book completely. And from what I've heard of
> > Kirpal, he would have heard about everything Paul wrote in those early
> > days, since he did keep track of his followers and he and Paul were
> > still writing to each other.
>
> happened. I just don't know for sure myself, as yet.
>
> > The question about Paul taking Gail to see Kirpal and getting the
> > initiation, this sounds incredibly similar to what Paul did with his
> > first wife, Camille. He took her to a whole series of churches and
> > teachers, to bring her up to speed with what he had been studying. We
> > saw this in the letters she wrote back to Paul while he was in the
> > Navy.
>
>
> I have no problem with accepting David Lane as credible on face value
> that he personally saw and took notes of Gail's Initiation records in
> India in 1988 - until proven beyond a doubt otherwise.http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsma3.html
>
> which btw includes this : "In fact, Twitchell even goes so far as to
> ask Kirpal Singh to publish his book The Tiger's Fang in 1966, well
> over a year after he founded Eckankar."
>
> ??? It may be no surprise that I have never read all of David's
> articles, books etc. so seeing things like 1966 asking TO Publish TTF,
> and NOT asking him to return it, is NEW ONE ON ME ! :)
>
> eg Initiation by Kirpal has Gail herself EVER denied this to you
> personally?
> But, have you ever asked her personally?, which is a more important
> point imho. Surely she would know.
>
> In LTG 3 it states quite clearly in early 1964 [ sorry after an hour
> still can't find the specific quote] - "during your Initiation with
> Sudar Singh last year" [sic]
>
> BUT all coments tell us that Sudar Singh died before 1950, so how
> could he be intitiating gail, even in the *inner* ?? fact is it is
> obvious that a change had been made here and was actually referring to
> Kirpal Singh, in 1963, and that reading this any other way makes NO
> sense.
>
> Unless Gail has denied any knowledge of Kirpal Singh, then why can't
> we just move on and get over this issue and accept it as true and
> accurate? Everyone already knows Sudar was used as a redaction tool
> for many other people, and not just Kirpal Singh.
>
> Over a dozen times Sudar Singh is mentioned in LTG III .. , sometimes
> as ECK Master Sudar Singh -- and in every case it looks to me that it
> is actually referring to Kirpal Singh personally, and this is CLEARLY
> so.
>
> It's a great book, imho, and it would still be a great book if the
> names were changed back to the original.
>
> > These are all of course just guesses.
>
> > Doug.
>
> These are all of course just guesses.
>
>
> Yes, I accept that. i too am full of guesses [at times], due to the
> lack of confirming data and all the gaps in our knowledge. And Harold
> Klemp is full of guesses and *I don't knows* as well.
>
> Yet, we need to have these guesses, these theories of what *may have
> been* because it helps to open up directions for research -- iow where
> to look and what to look for.
>
> But if we don't find any *confirming info* that stacks up with the
> THEORY, then the theory and all the guesses isn't worth much at all.
> It becomes nothing more than mouthing one's beliefs.
>
> My personal issue is about how much these theories have been overtaken
> and morphed into accepted evidence, or valid credible reasons as why
> Paul did x or y .
>
> The FALSE claim that "documented evidence PROVES that only 0.07% of
> Paul's writings on Eckankar were Plagiarised" is a classic example of
> this.
>
> NOT doing any real work to compare things properly adds up to evidence
> in the pseudo world of Eck Truth in the minds of some. I think this is
> really sad, and incredibly un-professional of Eckankar the Org who is
> the only entity that IS responsible. No one here is, NO ONE!
>
> For far too long now, imho, from Harold down, pro or anti-Eckankar,
> so much of this history about Paul is just not credible or reliable,
> as so much is full of *good guesses* that fit the *person* we think we
> know - when we really don't.
>
> And so often these *good guesses* are not presented as guesses, nor
> as Theories that REQUIRE true research to find the evidence to back up
> the Guesses, but as simple *facts*.
>
> OR when people's internalised *frames* are applied then it looks to me
> that all too often MOST people, yes I said MOST People block out or
> FILTER the words that say it is just a guess or a good theory, and
> read it as GOSPEL FACT .. especially when it comes from a person seen
> to be a proven credible & reliable person; eg Harold or Yourself, as
> well as David and Ford in another camp.
>
> That Eckankar itself has done nothing in this regard, bar Harold
> reading over some of Paul's private files, to me is unbelievable, and
> I simply cannot comprehend it.
>
> Why is so hard to go out and nail down a few home truths and accurate
> details about Paul's life --- WHEN these details, and Paul's teachers,
> and Paul's plagiarising MO are behind 99% of the negative publicity
> that Eckankar has had since 1977?
>
> And yet from HQ? Nothing ... but a few Lawyer letters to those who
> seek real facts, and honest explanations backed up with evidence of
> what is.
>
> Why is David Lane now doing a series on the Plagiarism of the Far
> Country in 2010, and yet we are yet top get ONE sentence with the
> words "plagiarised" and "TFC" in it about Paul in any book, in any
> talk, in any webpage by Eckankar?
>
> [ all these are just rhetorical questions, I don't need an answer or
> opinion about ]
>
> But I wonder [ rarely] about the NEW Chelas who joined just last week
> [ any week] who excitedly do an online search about Eckankar or Paul,
> and come up with all this "crappolla" both pro and con everywhere
> online.
>
> And not ONE straight on-the-level response or clarification or
> official commentary by Eckankar that such a search will raise almost
> immediately.
>
> I guess they better go buy TWT .... something that was done without
> access to the files stored away in MN secret archive, and not spoken
> about since 1985 in any significant way. <smile>
>
> Or several years on a.r.e. arguing with anon posters too damn scared
> and paranoid to use their real name in any form, or others non-stop
> harassing people who ask simple questions not being answered anywhere
> else. This is supposed to be good PR for Eckankar and shows the world
> how sound it is , and how important things can be discovered on the
> inner as the premier source for everything?
>
> Maybe Eckankar imagines it is like China and there's an auto filter
> installed into Google Search strings about Paul Twitchell and
> Eckankar. That isn't the case however, and because that isn't the case
> Eckankar continues, in the eyes of many for no good purpose, appear
> like a con-job, a cover up full of deceptions and half-truths, and a
> second rate operation unable to deal with the reality of life on
> planet earth circa 2010.
>
> And Eckankar only looks deceptive for the reason that it is in fact
> acting deceptively, is NOT open and honest and forthright, and is not
> in fact being honest or Truthful at all.
>
> But none of that is my responsibility, and I will not take it on
> either. But it is not hard to feel and understand how and why others
> feel about it the way that they do, in and out of Eckankar.
>
> David Lane and his work is far from finished imho. Looks to me like
> Eckankar has yet to even begin facing up to it's responsibilities to
> those it seeks to recruit as new members, and hold longer than a few
> years at best.
>
> So I simply ........ <shrug> and <sigh> and :)
>
> Thanks Sean
Sean,
First, I agree with you that it is hard to say when Kirpal formed his
opinion that Paul's teaching was based on dream techniques, which was
the main reason stated that he didn't think Paul's teaching was valid.
He could have formed that opinion anywhere along the way. And as you
point out, this doesn't change anything when he formed that opinion.
I also agree that we keep in mind what are guesses and not let them
turn into proven facts, which they aren't.
You refer to a detailed talk of Kirpal with his followers about Paul
and TTF. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. There was
Kirpal's quotes from his talks published later as Heart to Heart
Talks. The quotes in my book that we've seen many times are the extent
of what he specifically said about TTF. There was also a long piece
written by Russell Perkins that I included on page 136 of my book. Is
that what you were referring to?
I don't know of any other detailed comments about Kirpal and what he
said about the TTF or Paul.
I also accept David's comment that he saw the initiation papers for
Gail and that she was probably initiated. That wasn't the "question" I
was referring to. Etznab had asked the question of why would Paul do
this if he had long before left Kirpal? It doesn't seem strange at all
to me that Paul would bring Gail to meet him and encourage her to take
the initiation. As I said, Paul did the same thing with his first
wife, and it didn't in any way mean he was committed to the teachings
he took her to.
I agree that it is possible Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript of TTF
when he met him in 1963, although Harold said that he sent it to him.
So, it could have been after their meeting as well.
I think you are right that the reference in LTG III about Gail getting
her initiation the year before is mostly likely referring to Kirpal. I
haven't had enough time with Gail to ask her this. We've only talked
briefly. But Patti Simpson Rivinus told me that when she was
publishing the Letters to Gail in The ECK World News, which was the
first place they were seen before being published in book form, she
said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
however. But that was a long time ago.
By the way, I don't know if any of the Letters to Gail were published
while Paul was alive, so I'm not sure he made any of those edits.
Patti might have or Gail.
As for Eckankar not addressing these issues and not coming out with
more real facts to help clarify the picture - well, that's of course
exactly why I published my book, to help fill that void.
I'm sure everyone always has good reasons for the positions they take
on how open they will be. Corporations and organizations rarely were
open in the past. It was considered a risk to share information unless
is was necessary. But the Internet has changed the world, and more
openness is now the much wiser course. This doesn't mean sharing
everything, but that openness is appreciated by people, because it
helps everyone get at the truth.
Harold told me that one day the files would be made open to
researchers who wanted to go in and study them.
Doug.
Etznab
Doug,
I see it a little unusual considering the timing.
"According to Paul, he wrote the book [The Far Country] shortly
after meeting Gail, when he moved down to San Francisco, which
would have been in 1963-1964. This is the same year Paul gave
his copy of The Tiger's Fang to Kirpal Singh, and introduced Gail
to Kirpal, which resulted in Gail being initiated by Kirpal. [....]"
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Six.htm
Because, according to Paul Twitchell:
"[....] 'and it was in the company of Rebazar Tarzs that I returned
to a study of the Far Country. Later, with Gail and her spiritual
guide, Dr. John Leland, I came to know Rebazar Tarzs better, and
I began to leave my physical body at night to meet with him at his
mud and brick hut in the Himalayas. It was a series of twelve im-
portant dialogues with Rebazar Tarzs which produced my manu-
script The Far Country.' [....]"
[IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger, p. 121]
It's curious to me that Paul would encourage Gail to get Initiation
from Kirpal Singh in 1963, or 1964 unless Ruhani Satsang was in
some ways related to Eckankar and the teachings of Rebazar T.
Otherwise, why not have her initiated by Rebazar Tarzs?
One reason I could think of is if Rebazar Tarzs wasn't a real live
person capable of acting as a Living Master, whereas Kirpal S.
was. According to the Eckankar stories, it looks like Rebazar
Tarzs was the Living Eck Master in 1963-64. In fact, I don't be-
lieve it was only Paul Twitchell who saw, met, or spoke with
Rebazar Tarzs - according to the record. I believe there is the
mention of Gail meeting him too. It will take me some time to
locate the illustration where this appears.
About Paul Twitchell not being committed to the teachings of
Ruhani Satsang or Kirpal Singh in 1963-1964, I think he was.
Considering the amount of material from Julian Johnson's The
Path Of The Masters in The Far Country, The Shariyat or any
other of the Eckankar books written by Paul Twitchell.
commit: late 14c., from L. committere "to bring together,"
from com- "together" + mittere "to put, send" [....]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=commit&searchmode=none
BTW. About Gail or Patti making revisions to Letters to Gail
after Paul died - Which one of them put in the words Eckankar
and Rebazar Tarzs in the first Letter to Gail? Or, were they, in
fact, there in the original 1962 letter? See if you can ask them
about this when you get time. It might be a helpful clarification.
About the files being open to the public, even classified gov't
materials become public via freedom of information, etc. I do
not see any reason why it can't happen with a company, or
business too. Barring any priest penitent privilege.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy-penitent_privilege
Justification of the principle
McNicol[3] gives three arguments in favour of the privilege:
Freedom of religion
The ethical duty of ministers of religion to keep confessions
confidential
The practical fact that ministers of religion will inevitably be
ruled by the conscience and defy the courts, even at the
cost of their own liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy-penitent_privilege
Under the section Freedom of Religion:
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom
of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest
religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance;
the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom
to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] Freedom of
religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fund-
amental human right.[2] Thomas Jefferson said (1807) "among
the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to
worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His
will; ..."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
You might not agree, but I think the freedom of religion goes
both ways. And that members have the freedom to know the
truth - as it is known by their ministers - regarding the origin
and written history of a member's religion. Especially if, and
when, said history is knowingly changed, edited, revised or
pseudo-fied to the detriment of religious adherents. Also if,
and when, the latter leads to forms of religious persecution -
the cause of which is not known to the persecuted but has
the effect of perpetrating a form of unlawful discrimination &
covert character assassination against citizens affiliated by
membership with said religious organization.
Etznab
P.S. For the record.
Etznab
[....] I believe there is the mention of Gail meeting him too. It
will
take me some time to locate the illustration where this appears."
**************************************************************************
Didn't know I would find a reference so quickly. However, I began
the task of comparing The Cosmic Worlds chapter of Dialogues
With The Master with Chapter One of The Far Country and found
a slightly different quote from the one from In My Soul I Am Free.
"Later, with Gail, my wife, I came to know Rebazar Tarzs better.
He talked several times to us. I began to leave the body at night
and meet with him at his mud and brick hut in the Himalayas."
The Far Country, Chap. One, bottom of 2nd page and continuing
on top of 3rd page. Eighth Printing 1983.
**************************************************************************
Much will be learned from the comparison of these two chapters
I am sure. As in a number of places they appear very identical.
Of note, however, is that in DWTM Rebazar Tarzs came to Paul
(reportedly). Whereas, in The Far Country, Paul claims to go to
Rebazar Tarzs. In the Himalayas.
If anybody knows more about that Dr. John Leland I would like
to look him up and learn what he knows about Rebazar Tarzs.
Etznab
khalam
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote ...
A reason Paul might encourage Gail to get initiation from Kirpal Singh
is that was the path that Paul took. In other words he studied with
Kirpal before he met Rebazar. It was a stepping stone for him in the
expansion of his awareness. So perhaps he saw it that way for Gail as
well, as a step on the path to Eckankar and to Rebazar.
Etznab
My understanding, according to the written record,
is that Paul met Rebazar Tarzs before Kirpal Singh.
Kirpal in 1955. Rebazar in 1951, Sudar Singh in 1935.
Perhaps you meant "before Paul met Rebazar again"
when he started appearing in 1963-64?
I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Etznab
Etznab
Etznab
> On Feb 14, 11:50 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean,
>
> > First, I agree with you that it is hard to say when Kirpal formed his
> > opinion that Paul's teaching was based on dream techniques, which was
> > the main reason stated that he didn't think Paul's teaching was valid.
> > He could have formed that opinion anywhere along the way. And as you
> > point out, this doesn't change anything when he formed that opinion.
>
>
> Hi Doug :)
>
> Also, my pov is that given that it appears there were letters from
> Kirpal to Paul as well, one would assume that at some point Kirpal
> must have read Paul's letters or Initiate Reports to Kirpal before
> replying.
>
> Therefore my common sense tells me that Kirpal would have been aware
> about Paul's MO and the dream master moving into lucid dreaming into
> soul travel experiences [ whatever one chooses to name them ] as soon
> as Kirpal had read some of these letters by Paul. And yet, there's
> this *odd piece of evidence*, maybe more, that doesn't seem to fit
> with others. [ later ]
>
> > I also agree that we keep in mind what are guesses and not let them
> > turn into proven facts, which they aren't.
>
>
> Actually that's a serious question too. Why? Because there are
> different groups as well as individuals of *we* involved. It is not
> just one *we* here. I agree with what you say, but how this affects
> different people changes.
>
> I believe that is better to be less general, an more specific. So one
> could write "I also agree that individuals keep in mind what are
> guesses and not let them turn into proven facts, which they aren't."
>
> example, how about "I also agree that individuals remain aware when
> listening to what were actually guesses from this unconsciously
> morphing into believing that they are now proven facts."
> plus
> "I also agree that individuals remain aware when sharing or
> repeating what were actually nuanced opinions about what may have been
> behind the known evidence [facts available], from this unconsciously
> morphing into that is "what know is", when it isn't.
>
> > You refer to a detailed talk of Kirpal with his followers about Paul
> > and TTF. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.
>
>
> > There was
> > Kirpal's quotes from his talks published later as Heart to Heart
> > Talks. The quotes in my book that we've seen many times are the extent
> > of what he specifically said about TTF. There was also a long piece
> > written by Russell Perkins that I included on page 136 of my book. Is
> > that what you were referring to?
>
> comprehensive Index file available for your book that you could share
> with me? That would help enormously, and some!
>
> OK yes I think these are the only two things i have ever heard about,
> and been quoted from/about Kirpal. The H2H talks was 9/11/1970, so
> that was a year before Paul wrote his "letter" shortly before
> 9/17/1971
>
> Did you know that Kirpal goes on to talk about initiates karma being
> worked off via dreams?
>
> anyway, Paul wrote letters to Kirpal saying that he would appear to
> Paul in the inner in the radiant body[?], and that he appeared and
> dictated things to Paul in his bedroom in Washington [?].
>
> I can't recall when Paul was supposed to have written DWTM, was that
> 55/56, or 56/57, or he started it way back in 1951. .. and writing of
> TTF came or began after that basically as far as known reports are
> concerned.
>
> Is it Harold says Paul sent/gave TTF to Kirpal in 1963? That's a very
> very long time after your letter quote from July 11 1957, and the
> timing of writing TTF, and that I think it would be accepted that
> Kirpal is mentioned in that manuscript, and not RT at all, yes?
>
> Kirpal's public comments don't come until 1970, an entire 7 years
> after he was supposedly sent the book. Never have I heard from Kirpal
> that he had read the manuscript TTF, but I do know he read Paul's
> letters.
>
> > I don't know of any other detailed comments about Kirpal and what he
> > said about the TTF or Paul.
>
> > I also accept David's comment that he saw the initiation papers for
> > Gail and that she was probably initiated. That wasn't the "question" I
> > was referring to.
>
>
> > Etznab had asked the question of why would Paul do
> > this if he had long before left Kirpal? It doesn't seem strange at all
> > to me that Paul would bring Gail to meet him and encourage her to take
> > the initiation. As I said, Paul did the same thing with his first
> > wife, and it didn't in any way mean he was committed to the teachings
> > he took her to.
>
> Paul's own words on record that speak about RT from the early 50's
> onwards as being guiding him in the works of Eckankar. I think it
> would have to be one of the most obvious and natural questions to ask
> actually .. Why is Paul bothering with taking Gail to Initiations with
> Kirpal when he has "never ever considered him a master, nor able to
> give Initiations" ???
>
> So she also gets to see how little they mean? Seem's an awfully
> callous way to be using others who are *sincere and committed to the
> teachings" for so many people. While it may be quite possible, I guess
> there are many people who find it an quite unusual thing for anyone to
> do knowingly.
>
> On top of that Paul was also around that exact same time period,
> sending Kirpal TTF manuscript after a time when he had already
> rejected Kirpal as a genuine master. That sounds a little more than
> just * trying to find a home for his own writings* to being something
> more than simply "using someone else".
>
> Now, I am NOT saying that is what I personally think, for I do not
> know for sure .. but I can certainly understand and accept to that
> many have come to this view, and that to do so seems self-evident on
> the facts as generally known. I personally cannot find others at
> fault for thinking such a thing, that's for sure.
>
> > I agree that it is possible Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript of TTF
> > when he met him in 1963, although Harold said that he sent it to him.
> > So, it could have been after their meeting as well.
>
> overall.
>
> > I think you are right that the reference in LTG III about Gail getting
> > her initiation the year before is mostly likely referring to Kirpal. I
> > haven't had enough time with Gail to ask her this. We've only talked
> > briefly. But Patti Simpson Rivinus told me that when she was
> > publishing the Letters to Gail in The ECK World News, which was the
> > first place they were seen before being published in book form, she
> > said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
> > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
> Sawan's name had been redacted to Sudar before. Any ideas, besides the
> Introduction to Eckankar book, where that happened?
>
> So that's why so many had previously thought it could be Sawan,
> aha, ... well this makes sense that's for sure. I am hoping to come to
> a definitive list of all the known instances that Paul's original
> names were redacted to Sudar Singh either by him or others.
>
> > By the way, I don't know if any of the Letters to Gail were published
> > while Paul was alive, so I'm not sure he made any of those edits.
> > Patti might have or Gail.
>
> Paul.
>
> > As for Eckankar not addressing these issues and not coming out with
> > more real facts to help clarify the picture - well, that's of course
> > exactly why I published my book, to help fill that void.
>
>
> > I'm sure everyone always has good reasons for the positions they take
> > on how open they will be. Corporations and organizations rarely were
> > open in the past. It was considered a risk to share information unless
> > is was necessary. But the Internet has changed the world, and more
> > openness is now the much wiser course. This doesn't mean sharing
> > everything, but that openness is appreciated by people, because it
> > helps everyone get at the truth.
>
>
> > Harold told me that one day the files would be made open to
> > researchers who wanted to go in and study them.
>
> > Doug.
>
> mentioned it before.
>
> Cheers Sean
Nice questions Sean. Glad to see I'm not the only one asking
reasonable questions and contemplating the obvious.
Etznab
Etznab
> On Feb 14, 11:50 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 8:49 pm, Santim Vah <santim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 11:01 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
> > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
> was included on the list of redactions, that must have just passed me
> by.
>
> But more than just that, u mention in the book etc, that Kirpal had
> said his line would srtop and move to the USA, or the West.
>
> I can't recall from where, but my memory has something about Sawan
> Singh Himself saying that about himself, that he never left any
> clearly annointed Spiritual Master to follow him ... he may have left
> assets such as home or ashram etc to someone or some group, but I am
> not talking about that only about an annointed spirutal guru to
> replace his lineage ... I thought he said he was the end of a line,
> which to me is one reason why he was so keen on teaching overseas and
> using people like Julian Johnson to write about teh teachigns for the
> West in thge 1930's.
>
> I'm interested about thsi ebcasue given Sawan is a definitive PSSB
> line, and not the parent faith ... he's interesting becasue he did
> pass away circa 1949 along with 2 or three other of my suspects, and
> yet is it you or harold or someone else has said that Sawan could not
> be connected with being the 'real Sudar', a teaching guru with an
> ashram up the road from Allahabad with a leaning Sufism. Is he?
>
> ok thx just wondering .. I'm sure i will come across some info about
> this sooner or later, though have been sort ignoring him due what the
> *consensus* view has been for years, and I have never properly looked
> at him before to any depth.
>
> ALSO
> Is the full text of Paul's 1968 Cosmic Star article "The price of the
> Spiritual Life" already available via some online source that you or
> anyone knows about?
>
> cheers sean
The link I gave (that you quoted from) mentions Sawan Singh
a number of times. Think I saw something curious there, but
don't remember where. It's only about a fifty page article! and
I'm not done reading it yet.
One could search for Sawan. I thought it mentioned in some
place that Sawan Singh had an affiliation with Advaita Vedanta.
I will check.
"It should be noted that Hazur Baba Sawan Singh was attracted
to advaita as well, but after study of Kabir's Anurag Sagar decided
the path of shabd was higher."
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/santmat1.html
The "find on page" option is very useful because one can page
search for "Sawan" and read only the Sawan Singh history -
his name appears several times - instead of reading the whole
article. One one could search for the name Rumi. Etc.
BTW, Julian Johnson reportedly wrote what the master S.S.
"inspired", "told", "suggested" ??? he write? At least, there
was something in TPOTM about Sawan Singh being involved.
What is interesting to me is the relationship Paul Twitchell
seemed to have with Rebazar Tarzs. Where Rebazar had a
number of things he wanted Paul to write about and share
with the world. And Johnson seemed to be doing the same
thing for Sawan Singh.
That's all (from me) for now.
Etznab
khalam
"Etznab" wrote...
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. But it's not the timeline as much
as a spiritual progression that I see.
Doug
Etznab,
No, I don't agree that freedom of religion goes both ways any more
than ownership of our homes goes both ways.
As an example, when I went to Western Kentucky University to study the
files they have there from Paul Twitchell's early life, they made it
clear that they had no intention of digitizing the files or making
them available on line, because it would be just like giving them
away. Retaining control was important to them.
It was their right to keep them in any way they wanted. In this case,
they made the files open to those who visited and agreed to their
terms of research. This is at least somewhat open, but it is
completely their choice whether to share the information or not.
The freedom of information act is purely aimed at government agencies,
since those files belong to the country and therefore citizens should
have a right to see them. So, it is an ownership issue. But this
doesn't give anyone the ability to take away someone else's ownership
rights.
This whole issue came up recently with Carl Jung's diary, which was
published for the first time this last year. Called, The Red Book, it
describes his early research into the depths of his own subconscious.
The family who owned the diary didn't want to make it public, because
they thought it could be used to create a distorted and negative image
of Jung, since some of this methods and experiences were definitly
beyond the norm. However, it was when they discovered that some parts
of the diary might have been distributed by Carl Jung himself while he
was still alive, and that copies could eventually become public - they
worried that it would be worse if someone else published it first and
put a negative slant on the diary.
So, after decades of people begging them, they finally published it.
It was completely their choice.
As for Gail's inititiation, as I said before, I don't see this as a
reflection of Paul's commitment to Kirpal Singh as his teacher. You
are asking why would Paul have wanted Gail to meet Kirpal and take his
initiation if he was studying with Rebazar at that time. I think a
reasonable answer is that he wanted her to experience and meet Kirpal
for herself. Paul said that he thought Kirpal had interest in what
Paul was doing and seemed supportive of it. That would be reason
enough for Paul to introduce Gail to him.
We know that Paul wrote his papers for L Ron Hubbard long after he
started studying with Kirpal. We know Paul also moved back onto Swami
Premananda's property even after that. This doesn't mean he saw those
as his path. He simply kept friendships in all sorts of groups he had
visited and spent time with. I wouldn't be surprised if he introduced
Gail to many of his old friends.
If I get a chance, I will ask Patti what she remembers about those
Letters to Gail documents.
Doug.
Doug
Etznab,
If anyone runs across any information on Dr. John Leland, I would be
interested as well.
I have searched, but found nothing about him. After reading what Paul
has written, I've come to the conclusion that Paul is talking about an
inner teacher that Gail had, not an outer teacher.
If this is true, then it is interesting that he would him together
with Rebazar Tarzs in the same references.
Doug.
Doug
> On Feb 14, 11:50 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > First, I agree with you that it is hard to say when Kirpal formed his
> > opinion that Paul's teaching was based on dream techniques, which was
> > the main reason stated that he didn't think Paul's teaching was valid.
> > He could have formed that opinion anywhere along the way. And as you
> > point out, this doesn't change anything when he formed that opinion.
>
>
> Hi Doug :)
>
> Also, my pov is that given that it appears there were letters from
> Kirpal to Paul as well, one would assume that at some point Kirpal
> must have read Paul's letters or Initiate Reports to Kirpal before
> replying.
>
> Therefore my common sense tells me that Kirpal would have been aware
> about Paul's MO and the dream master moving into lucid dreaming into
> soul travel experiences [ whatever one chooses to name them ] as soon
> as Kirpal had read some of these letters by Paul. And yet, there's
> this *odd piece of evidence*, maybe more, that doesn't seem to fit
> with others. [ later ]
I agree. It seems safe to say that Kirpal had read at least many of
Paul's letters, since he replied. And apparently, according to David,
Kirpal replied in a friendly, supportive way.
>
> > I also agree that we keep in mind what are guesses and not let them
> > turn into proven facts, which they aren't.
>
> OK. But who is this "we" that "we" keep hearing about? :)
>
> Actually that's a serious question too. Why? Because there are
> different groups as well as individuals of *we* involved. It is not
> just one *we* here. I agree with what you say, but how this affects
> different people changes.
>
> I believe that is better to be less general, an more specific. So one
> could write "I also agree that individuals keep in mind what are
> guesses and not let them turn into proven facts, which they aren't."
>
> Though I would much prefer even greater clarity than subtlety. For
> example, how about "I also agree that individuals remain aware when
> listening to what were actually guesses from this unconsciously
> morphing into believing that they are now proven facts."
> plus
> "I also agree that individuals remain aware when sharing or
> repeating what were actually nuanced opinions about what may have been
> behind the known evidence [facts available], from this unconsciously
> morphing into that is "what know is", when it isn't.
I actually made a point of this in my book, and I made a point of this
many times during my discussions with David even before I wrote my
book.
The reason that people jump to conclusions is simply because that is
the way most people take information in. They accept things as fact if
it makes sense. We can find cases of this in all fields and across all
types of people. It unfortunately leads to misunderstandings. But
telling everyone not to do that doesn't change much, because it is
mostly unconscious.
Once we go through and start researching things for ourselves, we
start to see this clearer. Then it becomes easier to see it in
ourselves and how we all do this. This makes it more conscious and we
can see the mistakes it leads to.
By the way, in case you are interested, I never felt it was my
responsibility to prove who Paul really was or what he was really
like, or what he actually thought or his true intentions. It isn't
possible to prove such things. The position I took was that David was
making all of these kinds of assertions and I only needed to show how
wrong his claims were and that there were other alternative theories
that fit the facts better. I knew there were many facts that
contradicted his claims. I just wanted to show how much information
there was to support a very different picture than the one David was
painting.
This doesn't mean I was making assertions about Paul and what he did.
I don't think that is necessary and I think it is hard to say for
sure. I only needed to show that David's representation was sorely
lacking and seriously slanted. I've always felt that we will never
know Paul completely, just as we never really know anyone fully. My
intention has never been to speak for Paul, but to show what seems to
be other real ways of seeing him that fit with the facts and what he
said, simply as a way of presenting perspectives that make sense. I
think each person needs to decide for themselves what they think.
>
> > You refer to a detailed talk of Kirpal with his followers about Paul
> > and TTF. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.
>
> My memory basically .. :)
>
> > There was
> > Kirpal's quotes from his talks published later as Heart to Heart
> > Talks. The quotes in my book that we've seen many times are the extent
> > of what he specifically said about TTF. There was also a long piece
> > written by Russell Perkins that I included on page 136 of my book. Is
> > that what you were referring to?
>
> Yes I believe so, let me check. Doug, would you happen to have a
> comprehensive Index file available for your book that you could share
> with me? That would help enormously, and some!
I have never put together an index. I will see how easy that is to do
and see what I can come up with.
>
> OK yes I think these are the only two things i have ever heard about,
> and been quoted from/about Kirpal. The H2H talks was 9/11/1970, so
> that was a year before Paul wrote his "letter" shortly before
> 9/17/1971
>
> Did you know that Kirpal goes on to talk about initiates karma being
> worked off via dreams?
Interesting!
>
> anyway, Paul wrote letters to Kirpal saying that he would appear to
> Paul in the inner in the radiant body[?], and that he appeared and
> dictated things to Paul in his bedroom in Washington [?].
>
> I can't recall when Paul was supposed to have written DWTM, was that
> 55/56, or 56/57, or he started it way back in 1951. .. and writing of
> TTF came or began after that basically as far as known reports are
> concerned.
According to Paul, DWTM was written in 1956 and TTF was written in
1957. That might be when they were completed or it might be both start
and completion.
>
> Is it Harold says Paul sent/gave TTF to Kirpal in 1963? That's a very
> very long time after your letter quote from July 11 1957, and the
> timing of writing TTF, and that I think it would be accepted that
> Kirpal is mentioned in that manuscript, and not RT at all, yes?
No, I don't see any reason to rule out RT being part of the story.
In fact, I think the only reason people have jumped to the conclusion
that the manuscript of TTF that Paul gave to Kirpal had no mention of
Rebazar is because this is how David first presented this. He doesn't
actually know, since David never saw the manuscript. From everything
I've heard, it is all based upon Kirpal's quote, where he said that
Paul took out his name and replaced it with the name of another
master. David assumed that this meant throughout the whole book. But
in fact, it isn't even clear that Kirpal ever read the manuscript.
This sounds more as if one of Kirpal's followers reports back to him
that Paul had published the TTF and when Kirpal asks if his name is
mentioned, and finds out that it wasn't, he makes his statement.
That doesn't tell us if RT was in the original manuscript or not.
Here is why I think it is possible that RT's name might have been in
the original TTF: The one place where Paul mentions the TTF and the
connection with Kirpal, is that article on the God Eaters. He says
that Kirpal spoke to him briefly when he took him into the other
worlds and he wrote about this in his book, TTF. In that same article,
he says that he had long been traveling into the other worlds before
this, but it was only when he met Rebazar Tarzs that he saw things he
had never seen before - or something like that.
In other words, he mentions both Kirpal and RT in this one reference.
There is no other reference about Kirpal and TTF from Paul that was
published. So, if this one reference is representative, then RT was an
integral part right from the beginning.
In other words, I think it is still an open question.
>
> Kirpal's public comments don't come until 1970, an entire 7 years
> after he was supposedly sent the book. Never have I heard from Kirpal
> that he had read the manuscript TTF, but I do know he read Paul's
> letters.
Makes sense to me.
>
> > I don't know of any other detailed comments about Kirpal and what he
> > said about the TTF or Paul.
>
> > I also accept David's comment that he saw the initiation papers for
> > Gail and that she was probably initiated. That wasn't the "question" I
> > was referring to.
>
> oh ok, sorry.
>
> > Etznab had asked the question of why would Paul do
> > this if he had long before left Kirpal? It doesn't seem strange at all
> > to me that Paul would bring Gail to meet him and encourage her to take
> > the initiation. As I said, Paul did the same thing with his first
> > wife, and it didn't in any way mean he was committed to the teachings
> > he took her to.
>
> It still seems strange to others though. Especially considering
> Paul's own words on record that speak about RT from the early 50's
> onwards as being guiding him in the works of Eckankar. I think it
> would have to be one of the most obvious and natural questions to ask
> actually .. Why is Paul bothering with taking Gail to Initiations with
> Kirpal when he has "never ever considered him a master, nor able to
> give Initiations" ???
>
> So she also gets to see how little they mean? Seem's an awfully
> callous way to be using others who are *sincere and committed to the
> teachings" for so many people. While it may be quite possible, I guess
> there are many people who find it an quite unusual thing for anyone to
> do knowingly.
>
> On top of that Paul was also around that exact same time period,
> sending Kirpal TTF manuscript after a time when he had already
> rejected Kirpal as a genuine master. That sounds a little more than
> just * trying to find a home for his own writings* to being something
> more than simply "using someone else".
>
> Now, I am NOT saying that is what I personally think, for I do not
> know for sure .. but I can certainly understand and accept to that
> many have come to this view, and that to do so seems self-evident on
> the facts as generally known. I personally cannot find others at
> fault for thinking such a thing, that's for sure.
Oh, I think the question is natural, but I think it comes out so hard
to understand because it has been so deeply framed by what David wrote
for so many years.
If we had never heard about any of these things before, I think we
would be asking all kinds of questions and everything would seem hard
to understand. But the problem is that David laid down a heavy trip
and we have to first push aside all of those things that so many
simply accepted as facts.
For example, David claimed that Paul had been a student of Kirpal's
for over 10 years. He said this over and over again for over a decade.
Now, the facts don't support that any more. It seems much more likely
that what Paul said was correct, that he actually only studied under
Kirpal for 1-2 years, not more than 10 years. But that he and Kirpal
kept a friendly relationship for more than 10 years.
So, now when we hear that Paul brought Gail around to meet Kirpal, he
is bringing her to meet a friend. That doesn't seem hard to understand
at all, to me.
I never said that Paul wanted Gail to see how far Kirpal's teaching
was from his own. I'm not sure if that was what you were implying, but
I would never agree with that. That doesn't sound like something Paul
would do. He was not one to criticize others or the focus on the
negative.
Paul was just starting to publish information about Eckankar at this
time of late 1963. He probably talked with Kirpal about it. Kirpal
probably had heard about it from his other followers as well, since
that kind of information traveled fast. But as David tells us, Kirpal
always seems to speak positively to Paul, and so we can see why Paul
walks away thinking they are friends and Kirpal is sympathetic with
what Paul is doing.
Under those conditions, why wouldn't he bring Gail by to meet him?
Paul thought he was an ally. This is why he spoke openly and
positively about Kirpal, as he thought Kirpal felt the same way, and
they could help each other. Paul seemed more than willing to say
glowing things about Kirpal.
In fact, Paul seems to come away from his meeting with Kirpal in 1963
with such a positive feeling that he sends Kirpal his TTF manuscript.
And then immediately turns around and starts writing The Far Country,
which is easy to see as being probably the closest thing to what
Kirpal thought of anything Paul ever wrote.
But I don't think this means Paul was writing this for Kirpal's Ruhani
Satsang. I think that Gail had stepped forward to encourage him to do
something with his writings, which is something he had been waiting
for. And then it seemed Kirpal was encouraging him as well.
If he had known that Kirpal really didn't agree with what Paul was
doing and was open critical about it to his closest followers, I don't
Paul would ever have brought Gail to meet him, or would he have sent
him his TTF manuscript, and it is highly likely The Far Country would
have taken a very different path.
>
> > I agree that it is possible Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript of TTF
> > when he met him in 1963, although Harold said that he sent it to him.
> > So, it could have been after their meeting as well.
>
> I think the longer it is after 1963 the more odd it looks to others
> overall.
Why do you think it might have been after 1963? I haven't heard of any
suggestions it was after 1963.
>
> > I think you are right that the reference in LTG III about Gail getting
> > her initiation the year before is mostly likely referring to Kirpal. I
> > haven't had enough time with Gail to ask her this. We've only talked
> > briefly. But Patti Simpson Rivinus told me that when she was
> > publishing the Letters to Gail in The ECK World News, which was the
> > first place they were seen before being published in book form, she
> > said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
> > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
> OK. Though I had never heard, or rather recall, anyone mentioning that
> Sawan's name had been redacted to Sudar before. Any ideas, besides the
> Introduction to Eckankar book, where that happened?
>
> So that's why so many had previously thought it could be Sawan,
> aha, ... well this makes sense that's for sure. I am hoping to come to
> a definitive list of all the known instances that Paul's original
> names were redacted to Sudar Singh either by him or others.
Patti told me that she thought there were more references to Sawan
Singh than Kirpal Singh. She said that she never felt that Kirpal
Singh was Sudar Singh, but she did wonder if Sawan Singh was. And
there were indeed a lot of early students of Paul's who wondered the
same thing. That might have been what influenced Patti as well.
Remember, Dr. Bluth was a follower of Sawan Singh, and by the time
Patti joined Eckankar there was already friction with Kirpal's
followers. I remember Sawan Singh's name being mentioned a number of
times in very positive ways in the early days, but only occasional
references to Kirpal because Paul had once studied with him. Also,
Paul does actually mention Sawan Singh in one of his talks from 1966,
and indicates the line of mastership ended with him, meaning that he
thought highly of Sawan Singh.
But I'll ask Patti again to see what she remembers.
Doug.
>
> > By the way, I don't know if any of the Letters to Gail were published
> > while Paul was alive, so I'm not sure he made any of those edits.
> > Patti might have or Gail.
>
> Sure, I thought the accepted view was that they weren't edited by
> Paul.
>
> > As for Eckankar not addressing these issues and not coming out with
> > more real facts to help clarify the picture - well, that's of course
> > exactly why I published my book, to help fill that void.
>
> Yes, of course. :)
>
> > I'm sure everyone always has good reasons for the positions they take
> > on how open they will be. Corporations and organizations rarely were
> > open in the past. It was considered a risk to share information unless
> > is was necessary. But the Internet has changed the world, and more
> > openness is now the much wiser course. This doesn't mean sharing
> > everything, but that openness is appreciated by people, because it
> > helps everyone get at the truth.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Harold told me that one day the files would be made open to
> > researchers who wanted to go in and study them.
>
> > Doug.
>
Doug
> On Feb 14, 11:50 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 8:49 pm, Santim Vah <santim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 11:01 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
Sean,
I don't think I've seen the original version of The Price of the
Spiritual Life, from the New Cosmic Star. That article is in the
Compiled Writings book,as you probably know, but it might be
interesting to see the original. My guess is that if it was published
in 1968 that it will look pretty much the same as what is in the book.
I remember hearing a number of people wondering if Sudar Singh was
Sawan Singh, in the early days. It was a widely asked question, even
in the ECK office, when I worked there.
By the way, Sardar is a name of respect often used for masters, so
Sardar Sawan Singh is something he was called.
The dates aren't far off from when he passed away. However, Sawan
Singh never had an ashram near Allahabad. It was always near Beas.
Sawan Singh did not formally announce anyone as his spiritual
successor. He did have a will that passed on his property to Jagat
Singh. The main body of chelas at Beas accepted this as a sign to look
to Jagat Singh. Kirpal stated that Sawan had told him personally that
he was to take on the spiritual leadership, but there is nothing to
corroborate his story.
While Kirpal did make statements near the end of his life that his
lineage would end with him, and that if it continued it would not be
in his family, still this was largely forgotten by the largest group
of his followers who continued studying with his son. However, this is
why some split off to follow Ajaib Singh instead, including Russell
Perkins, who I mentioned the other day.
However, Sawan Singh never said his lineage would stop with him. That
was Paul who said that it did in a talk he gave in 1966. Paul was
obviously expressing an opinion of his own.
But, we did learn later that Sawan Singh did not feel he was prepared
to be the Master after his teacher Jamail Singh died. In fact, he said
he was not in any way ready and asked for help from Soamibagh as to
what he should do with the Beas Satsang. Soamibagh sent Sudarshan
Singh, the nephew of Shiv Dayal Singh, the founder of Radhasoami, and
Sudarshan's father, who was Shiv Dayal's brother. They encouraged
Sawan to keep leading the Beas group, not as a master, but as an
authorized leader of the satsang, like what we call Arahatas in
Eckankar. This information was hidden by the Beas group until a few
years ago.
From this, Sawan always struck me as a sincere and inspired seeker and
spiritual leader. The picture of him that is most often used is such a
classic picture of a true guru that it is hard not to feel a
connection with him.
Doug.
Doug
Etznab,
Yes, that is an interesting parallel between JJ and his master Sawan
Singh compared with Paul and Rebazar.
By the way, one of the reasons JJ spent so much time writing The Path
of the Masters was because there was almost nothing available about
Radhasoami in English at the time. Certainly Beas Satsang had nothing.
What Julian Johnson drew from was mostly the works written by the
Soamibagh (parent faith) branch of Radhasoami. They had a few small
books in English, but more importantly they had volumes and volumes in
Hindi that outlined the foundation and principles of Radhasoami. So,
JJ was putting this all into English to give an outline to interested
Americans and British seekers, per Sawan's suggestion.
JJ wasn't actually taking down Sawan's teaching, but putting together
an English version of the teachings already available in Hindi from
the Soamibagh line of teachers.
So, maybe there are even more parallels than it might seem.
Doug.
Doug
> PS fyi a comment about Kirpal and TTF manuscript.
>
> > Kirpal's public comments don't come until 1970, an entire 7 years
> > after he was supposedly sent the book. Never have I heard from Kirpal
> > that he had read the manuscript TTF, but I do know he read Paul's
> > letters.
>
> heart to heart Q&A book, I am not so sure that it mean smuch of
> anything that Kirpal seemed to indicate that the TTF book was about
> 'dictation'.
>
> Kirpal is in a room of people, answering questions, he moves from
> talking about Initation reports to master appeared within, to
> dictation to the TTF.
>
> Kirpal is not in a space where he is being asked to be very clear and
> precise such as in a court, required to remember exactly .. these
> comments all look to me like general throw-away lines, imho, I have
> answered questions from my kids like this, where the "point" i was
> making was accurate, but the details of the discussion were not, I
> basically mis-spoke about part of the "story/explanation" i was giving
> them or muddled two things together into one.
>
> This to me is what is far more likely because it fits the situation
> Kirpal was in at the time he spoke about this ; and the queries
> weren'ty actually about paul but an a more general type of spiritual
> practice question, imho ... .... so unless something else, comes up, I
> no longer think that Kirpal was referring to the TTF or DWTM when he
> used the word "dictation" but about one tiny item from out of Paul's
> letters to him.
>
> thx sean
>
> PS did I mention then that Paul's letter to Kirpal denying he had
> initiated him must have gone out to Kirpal from Paul before sept 11th
> 1970 - as in "now he is carrying on propagander saying he was never
> intitiated by me" ....,.
>
> I think the *now* is significant and sets the time frame well.
Sean,
Actually, I don't think the "now" is referring to the personal letter
that Paul sent to Kirpal, which could hardly be called propaganda,
since it was a private letter.
I think it ties back to the Q&A in the Mystic World that was published
in late 1969, and I mentioned in my book. And I think Kirpal was
simply mistaken.
I think it is more likely that Kirpal's comments are what prompted
Paul to write his letter, not the other way around.
Check out the timing of the actual talks that Kirpal gave - not when
the book was published, which was much later. The timeline should
prove this out one way or the other.
Doug.
Etznab
Perhaps a parallel could be the time(s) when JJ was in India?
Not a parallel about RT, but one about SS. Paul (or Eckankar?)
said he met Suadar Singh in 1935? Wasn't JJ in India around
that time? I don't know of any conclusive proof aboutt Paul T.
in India during the 1930s. However, I suspect there is proof for
JJ being there. I always thought this was kinda curious.
BTW. I haven't read With A Great Master in India. The earlier
book from The Path Of The Masters. Have you read that book?
Who was the "Great Master" being referred to? I don't know.
Maybe Sawan Singh?
Etznab
Etznab
>
> > Once we go through and start researching things for ourselves, we
> > start to see this clearer. Then it becomes easier to see it in
> > ourselves and how we all do this. This makes it more conscious and we
> > can see the mistakes it leads to.
>
> > By the way, in case you are interested, I never felt it was my
> > responsibility to prove who Paul really was or what he was really
> > like, or what he actually thought or his true intentions. It isn't
> > possible to prove such things. The position I took was that David was
> > making all of these kinds of assertions and I only needed to show how
> > wrong his claims were and that there were other alternative theories
> > that fit the facts better. I knew there were many facts that
> > contradicted his claims. I just wanted to show how much information
> > there was to support a very different picture than the one David was
> > painting.
>
>
> > This doesn't mean I was making assertions about Paul and what he did.
> > I don't think that is necessary and I think it is hard to say for
> > sure. I only needed to show that David's representation was sorely
> > lacking and seriously slanted. I've always felt that we will never
> > know Paul completely, just as we never really know anyone fully. My
> > intention has never been to speak for Paul, but to show what seems to
> > be other real ways of seeing him that fit with the facts and what he
> > said, simply as a way of presenting perspectives that make sense. I
> > think each person needs to decide for themselves what they think.
>
> are still other alternative theories that may indeed fit the facts
> better. David or no David, I don't see this fundamental lay of the
> land changing in any way. I have always seen Etznab, as being someone
> wanting to move the thinking and the view point beyond a David-Doug /
> a.r.e. detractor-defender dichotomy.
>
> There is more to this story that just David's wonky assertions,
> conclusions conjectures, and misunderstandings and limited knowledge
> at that time he wrote and revised his books. Everything , including
> the conclusions that David drew make total sense to me, now, and I
> can't honestly see myself doing it any other way, including the wild
> presumptions, that the actual way that David approached it.
>
> iow I can disagree with some of David's conclusions and yet totally
> understand and appreciate why it is he went that way. Same with Ford,
> but I am not as close to knowing him as a person as I am David.
>
>
>
> > > Is it Harold says Paul sent/gave TTF to Kirpal in 1963? That's a very
> > > very long time after your letter quote from July 11 1957, and the
> > > timing of writing TTF, and that I think it would be accepted that
> > > Kirpal is mentioned in that manuscript, and not RT at all, yes?
>
> > No, I don't see any reason to rule out RT being part of the story.
>
> comment, which got lost in the way I *framed* the question/s.
>
> a) I think it would be accepted that Kirpal is mentioned in that
> manuscript, yes?
>
> b) I think it would be accepted that RT is not mentioned in that
> manuscript at all, yes?
>
> Your answer, "No, I don't see any reason to rule out RT being part of
> the story." This isn't really an answer to either question. That's
> just how you see it, which is fine, because on that point I can't
> argue because there is no evidence one way or the other that I could
> access today.
>
> And as to "I don't see any reason to rule out RT ... ", well the way i
> look at it, despite an absence of clear evidence one way or the other
> on TTF is that :: the circumstantial evidence exists that there is a
> clear and proven pattern of RT [ and many many other names] not
> appearing in early manuscripts and articles, but appearing in printed
> books under the Eckankar label. See? I think it would be accepted that
> this is a good reason to *expect* as being more likely than not, that
> a book written in 1957 would not include Rebazar Tarzs' name.
>
> If *clear and proven pattern* is a mis-representation, would you
> please clarify why that is so? [ and pls default to a position that my
> memory is far from perfect lol, which is why I ask. :) ]
>
> So while I can't rule it out that RT is included, it would be more
> accepted by more people overall, that it is not, at least until such
> times has some hard evidence to prove it is included, becomes
> available.
>
> This is how i was talking about this, and wasn't really jumping to any
> conclusions at all, but asking what is the *accepted view*
> overall .... whilst acknowledging that individuals would still have
> their own unique opinions.
>
> There actually good reasons for some of the the things that David and
> others conclude, that are fair and reasonable opinions to hold.
>
> > In fact, I think the only reason people have jumped to the conclusion
> > that the manuscript of TTF that Paul gave to Kirpal had no mention of
> > Rebazar is because this is how David first presented this. He doesn't
> > actually know, since David never saw the manuscript. From everything
> > I've heard, it is all based upon Kirpal's quote, where he said that
> > Paul took out his name and replaced it with the name of another
> > master. David assumed that this meant throughout the whole book. But
> > in fact, it isn't even clear that Kirpal ever read the manuscript.
> > This sounds more as if one of Kirpal's followers reports back to him
> > that Paul had published the TTF and when Kirpal asks if his name is
> > mentioned, and finds out that it wasn't, he makes his statement.
>
> > That doesn't tell us if RT was in the original manuscript or not.
>
> > Here is why I think it is possible that RT's name might have been in
> > the original TTF: The one place where Paul mentions the TTF and the
> > connection with Kirpal, is that article on the God Eaters. He says
> > that Kirpal spoke to him briefly when he took him into the other
> > worlds and he wrote about this in his book, TTF. In that same article,
> > he says that he had long been traveling into the other worlds before
> > this, but it was only when he met Rebazar Tarzs that he saw things he
> > had never seen before - or something like that.
>
> book as well as Kirpal, does he? His reference to RT here has got
> nothing at all to do with the Tigers Fang manuscript that he sent to
> Kirpal, does it?
>
> Paul's beliefs, and spiritual journey etc etc is not part of this.
> [ and do i have a copy of the god eaters article ??? probably
> somewhere, no tie to check now sorry ]
>
> > In other words, he mentions both Kirpal and RT in this one reference.
> > There is no other reference about Kirpal and TTF from Paul that was
> > published. So, if this one reference is representative, then RT was an
> > integral part right from the beginning.
>
> > In other words, I think it is still an open question.
>
>
> The problem being that one simple fact is able to knock over every
> theory as to why RT may be included in Paul's original TTF manuscript,
> that was reportedly sent to Kirpal in 1963 [ most likely & most
> plausible given what is known, yes?? ]
>
> Somewhere I have the date for this article ... the godeaters, isn't
> this the first time that Paul published RT's name? orion magazine or
> something? as opposed to it probably being included in LTG, but we
> don't know which reference as there were many changes made before
> publication in the early 70's. anywa, that's a side isue imho.
>
> That's an important date to flag on a time line imho. and see how it
> can be moved with newly found facts in the future. iow it should tell
> people what to look *for*, as opposed to what they should *think*
> about it.
>
>
>
> > > Kirpal's public comments don't come until 1970, an entire 7 years
> > > after he was supposedly sent the book. Never have I heard from Kirpal
> > > that he had read the manuscript TTF, but I do know he read Paul's
> > > letters.
>
> > Makes sense to me.
>
>
> 15 years after initiation, and 7 years after seeing his name removed
> from a book by Paul, 5 years after writing to the Parapsychology
> foundation, Kirpal makes a minute ie tiny minsiescule anecdotal
> teaching comment to a Chela asking him a specific question face to
> face, and it's blown out of all proportion.
>
> ooooh aaaaah, kirpal is being *critical in public* .. OMG <smile>
> Strewth, as we say in Australia ... why wouldn't he be? Just this time
> it was recorded. The same thing happened to Paul, where on the spot
> comments that were appropriate in the setting have been later
> published and looked upon as if they are an Pronouncment to all the
> World, in a pseudo official approval .. well, imagine people, he was
> the LEM, he must have know n his comments would be published,
> therefore he must have said this so I "Mr Important" could know what
> he said and felt then.
>
> And it's not as if Paul T was never ever 'critical" of someone or some
> group in writing, in a talk, in a book ... like ever. Harold did
> mention profusely as one example Paul's feelings towards the Catholic
> Church if I recall. ;-)
>
> I have no problem with Paul in any aspect of his life. I find it
> increasingly obvious how much [unconscious] spin is involved about it.
> that's all. How not just David but others make up all sorts of things
> in the absence of any substantial knowledge about it. I am seeking
> some realism, and some balance in all of this swirling currents from
> the past, and the likes of the dramas with Ford and Harold, and all
> the verbiages about it. I want a fresh look at all this. I'm am seeing
> lots of storms in tea cups, the more I look, and i have only been at
> it seriously for 10 weeks now. It's good. It actually helps to look
> with fresher eyes, and with the all the additional info that has come
> to light by people like you over the last dozen years, imho.
> Eckists have also deeply framed their own beliefs about this as much
> as David based upon nothing more than their own *framing*. That of
> course is understandable and quite natural too. But still, it is real,
> and it has it's own inertia and gravity to it.
>
> > If we had never heard about any of these things before, I think we
> > would be asking all kinds of questions and everything would seem hard
> > to understand. But the problem is that David laid down a heavy trip
> > and we have to first push aside all of those things that so many
> > simply accepted as facts.
>
> what I saw with my own eyes. No problem with this at all, I agree.
>
> Except I don't see it as as big a deal as is being portrayed. Why?
> because if one was to start with a clean slate, I sure than even with
> the extra info now available post 1977 and 1983 when David started,
> that the fundamental questions, and the unknowns as why this and not
> that still prevail in spades.
>
> IOW I am saying bluntly, that the initial questions raised by David's
> inquiries and the tidbits of facts he managed to compile are as valid
> today as in 1977.
>
> The landscaping may be different, but the road one is led down is the
> exact same off the beaten track that david first walked down. People's
> opinions for good or ill, really don't change this, imho. ;-)
>
> > For example, David claimed that Paul had been a student of Kirpal's
> > for over 10 years. He said this over and over again for over a decade.
> > Now, the facts don't support that any more. It seems much more likely
> > that what Paul said was correct, that he actually only studied under
> > Kirpal for 1-2 years, not more than 10 years. But that he and Kirpal
> > kept a friendly relationship for more than 10 years.
>
> underlying thing David was always alluding to by such examples as
> this, is the the direct similarities to Kirpal's, to RSSB, to the
> parent faith and al the way back to kabir and Nanak that Paul's
> "teaching" was.
>
> The fact about initiation is simply an objective item of proof that
> Paul did indeed study with Kirpal.
>
> Why? Because DARWIN basically totally denied it in writing.
> Why? because Paul had redacted Kirpal's name from previously published
> works.
>
> Why blame David for this? He did force Darwin or Paul do what they
> chose to do? He was simply investigating the "claims" and then
> reporting the hard facts that he did find, and then offering his
> opinions.
>
> Sounds like every single post on a.r.e., and every single book or talk
> ever given on Paul. ie David is normal, even if some of his
> conclusions are out there. :-)
>
> > So, now when we hear that Paul brought Gail around to meet Kirpal, he
> > is bringing her to meet a friend. That doesn't seem hard to understand
> > at all, to me.
>
>
> > I never said that Paul wanted Gail to see how far Kirpal's teaching
> > was from his own. I'm not sure if that was what you were implying, but
> > I would never agree with that. That doesn't sound like something Paul
> > would do. He was not one to criticize others or the focus on the
> > negative.
>
>
> and no I wasn't implying the above at all.
>
> > Paul was just starting to publish information about Eckankar at this
> > time of late 1963. He probably talked with Kirpal about it. Kirpal
> > probably had heard about it from his other followers as well, since
> > that kind of information traveled fast. But as David tells us, Kirpal
> > always seems to speak positively to Paul, and so we can see why Paul
> > walks away thinking they are friends and Kirpal is sympathetic with
> > what Paul is doing.
>
> comments by either in 1963. My impression was david was referring to
> the 1950's, but i could be wrong here.
>
> > Under those conditions, why wouldn't he bring Gail by to meet him?
> > Paul thought he was an ally. This is why he spoke openly and
> > positively about Kirpal, as he thought Kirpal felt the same way, and
> > they could help each other. Paul seemed more than willing to say
> > glowing things about Kirpal.
>
> > In fact, Paul seems to come away from his meeting with Kirpal in 1963
> > with such a positive feeling that he sends Kirpal his TTF manuscript.
>
> initiation, and after Paul probably talking with Kirpal at that time,
> in SF in late 1963??? I thought that was my theory? :-( LOL
>
> You see, the impression I always had was that it was something that
> was sent to Kirpal in the 50's, ala not long after he had written it.
> I have no idea why I thought that though.
>
> But as i stand here now, in 2010, and i know more about Paul in 1963
> than I used to, and I know more about what was written and when ....
> well i can think of NO REASON that Paul would send Kirpal Singh a
> manuscript that spoke about Rebazar Tarzs from cover to cover in late
> 1963.
>
> And that if he did send a book with RT mentioned in it from cover to
> cover, in every chapter, then I find it pretty hard to believe that
> even if Kirpal did not read the entire book, that surely he would at
> least have noticed one mention of RT there.
>
> And yet, here we have Kirpal in 1970 specifically talking about a book
> TTF, and how his name was changed to another guru's name.
>
> Can you follow my train of thought here Doug? It just makes NO sense
> to me if this was possible that RT was in TTF he sent to Kirpal that
> we wouldn't know about it by now from some source. It's just such a
> deal breaker imho. People may have their opinions and theories, but
> for me things need to fit in the context of the moment, where people
> are acting rational, or what's the point of such opinions?
>
> Why? Because what your theory is suggesting here is just like what the
> breakaways from Eckankar have done in essence. But before they did,
> they sent Harold their manuscript which spoke about these other
> masters who were over-riding Harold's own claims. Kirpal was not such
> a patient man, from my reading with his replies to his chelas.
>
> A seven year silence of Kirpal knowing that RT was the moving
> character in TTF book, doesn't sound like Kirpal or any master
> receiving such a manuscript from a devoted "chela" to me.
>
> There is nothing that i have seen that proves Paul was not still
> officially a chela of Kirpal's in 1963 either. Ok, maybe Paul didn't
> look privately to Kirpal as his teacher anymore, but that doesn't
> mean that Paul had told him this in 1963 when he took Gail along.
>
> Basically I think you are making far to many assumptions here,
> bringing in info from other aspects of Paul and then assuming that
> they fit this moment in time of Gail being Initiated, and Paul sending
> Kirpal the TTF manuscript.
>
> It's not 1971 when Paul translated, it is late 1963. Paul was not the
> exact same person nor held the same opinions/beliefs as he did in 1971
> then. What you say may well be true, but there is not enough basic
> info upon which to base such theories, imho. Just too many gaps.
>
> > And then immediately turns around and starts writing The Far Country,
> > which is easy to see as being probably the closest thing to what
> > Kirpal thought of anything Paul ever wrote.
>
> > But I don't think this means Paul was writing this for Kirpal's Ruhani
> > Satsang. I think that Gail had stepped forward to encourage him to do
> > something with his writings, which is something he had been waiting
> > for. And then it seemed Kirpal was encouraging him as well.
>
> > If he had known that Kirpal really didn't agree with what Paul was
> > doing and was open critical about it to his closest followers, I don't
> > Paul would ever have brought Gail to meet him, or would he have sent
> > him his TTF manuscript, and it is highly likely The Far Country would
> > have taken a very different path.
>
> even closer." maybe this was Kirpal's MO ?? I don't know ... LOL
>
> anyway, all the previous section about paul, Kirpal and Gail while
> interesting and possible, doesn't add up to much substantial one could
> hang their hat upon.
>
>
>
> > > > I agree that it is possible Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript of TTF
> > > > when he met him in 1963, although Harold said that he sent it to him.
> > > > So, it could have been after their meeting as well.
>
> > > I think the longer it is after 1963 the more odd it looks to others
> > > overall.
>
> > Why do you think it might have been after 1963? I haven't heard of any
> > suggestions it was after 1963.
>
>
> I am not suggesting it was after 1963, only that the longer it is
> after 1957, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and even 63, the more odd it looks to
> others. The less sense it makes, imo, to send Kirpal such a work the
> later it is sent to Kirpal, knowing where Paul was at in 1963, and
> then 64, 65, 66.
>
> And it makes no sense at all to most people I would think, to be
> sending Kirpal a book that repeatedly speaks about Rebazar Tarzs in
> TTF, ever, no matter how positive Paul believed or wrote that Kirpal
> looked upon "his work" favourably. Seems all a tad naive imho.
> talking baout what we think paul's intentions were, doesn't help much
> here.
>
> The questions are simple really, when did Paul write the manuscript.
> When did Paul give it to kirpal. When did paul ask for it back. When
> did Paul get it back? Was RT included in this original manuscript? And
> when did Paul publish it?
>
> These are all basic historical questions, that can only be resolved
> with straight-forward evidence, not theory nor opinion. The only known
> known is when it was Published. This is the extent of my current
> interest. <G>
>
> After such facts are known it may then be worthwhile to proceed into
> the realm of why, or what does it mean, or what could his intentions
> have been? But these are all very personal private questions, imho,
> not historical ones. I am sticking to the historical, having abandoned
> the realm of opinion for a while because that has been going no where
> for years but in a loop. ;-o
>
>
>
> > > > I think you are right that the reference in LTG III about Gail getting
> > > > her initiation the year before is mostly likely referring to Kirpal. I
> > > > haven't had enough time with Gail to ask her this. We've only talked
> > > > briefly. But Patti Simpson Rivinus told me that when she was
> > > > publishing the Letters to Gail in The ECK World News, which was the
> > > > first place they were seen before being published in book form, she
> > > > said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
> > > > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > > > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > > > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
> > > OK. Though I had never heard, or rather recall, anyone mentioning that
> > > Sawan's name had been redacted to Sudar before. Any ideas, besides the
> > > Introduction to Eckankar book, where that happened?
>
> > > So that's why so many had previously thought it could be Sawan,
> > > aha, ... well this makes sense that's for sure. I am hoping to come to
> > > a definitive list of all the known instances that Paul's original
> > > names were redacted to Sudar Singh either by him or others.
>
> > Patti told me that she thought there were more references to Sawan
> > Singh than Kirpal Singh.
>
>
> Why wasn't the Swords of the Sugmad told on a.r.e. in the 1990's? LOL
>
> MORE references to Sawan Singh redacted into Sudar Singh, than were
> ever Kirpal, or another. Mmmm, now that wasn't in The Whole Truth book
> was it? i can't remember, but you would know Doug.
>
> > She said that she never felt that Kirpal
> > Singh was Sudar Singh, but she did wonder if Sawan Singh was.
>
>
> Darwin says he saw a painting of Sudar Singh, that he was a real
> person and wasn't Kirpal.
> Harold still says he doesn't know, but it wasn't Sudarshan Singh.
> You say you don't know, or if you do, you've avoided it entirely
> [ unless I have missed it]
>
> Etznab says he doesn't know, and asks if anyone does, and he gets
> abused for his trouble and told to check it out on the inner because
> that's the only thing that counts! <smile>
>
> Do you understand why i don;t buy the notion that we have a mystery
> here because of the way that David "framed" it? <smile>
>
> Doug, Doug, ........ what is going on here? :-)
>
> > And
> > there were indeed a lot of early students of Paul's who wondered the
> > same thing. That might have been what influenced Patti as well.
> > Remember, Dr. Bluth was a follower of Sawan Singh,
>
> whatever.
>
> and by the time
>
> > Patti joined Eckankar there was already friction with Kirpal's
> > followers.
>
> and that for Kirpal and/or his US leadership to be a little upset with
> Paul doing workshops at the Parapsychology Foundation place in, let's
> see 1964 wasn't it [?] around a year or so after Gail's first
> Initiation by Kirpal in CA, that Kirpal and his people may have been
> almost forced by the circumstances in front of their eyes to look upon
> Paul's work as a cheap copy in 1964/65, [ ala Michael Owens or anyone
> else for that matter ] seems to me at least, an incredibly normal
> response, well reasoned, very plausible, and completely rational at
> the time.
>
> Then poor young innocent eyed long-haired David Lane comes along and
> Darwin denies Paul was even Initiated by Kirpal and re-phrases the
> entire question he was being asked by answering about ECK Initiations
> only and ignoring David's quite clear framing of his question in a
> normal light of what *Initiated by Kirpal Singh* would have and did
> mean in the real world.
>
> What else ARE these people supposed to "imagine" what happened here?
> It is not like it was the first time such a thing had happened in the
> world of spiritual teachers and groups. David didn't create this
> situation at all. His opinions may have confused others later, but he
> didn't create the events and the initial confusions himself. That
> responsibility, or cause, lays elsewhere. Isn't that abundantly clear
> now? It is what it is. Right? :-)
>
> > I remember Sawan Singh's name being mentioned a number of
> > times in very positive ways in the early days, but only occasional
> > references to Kirpal because Paul had once studied with him. Also,
> > Paul does actually mention Sawan Singh in one of his talks from 1966,
> > and indicates the line of mastership ended with him, meaning that he
> > thought highly of Sawan Singh.
>
> have been this mention by Paul being repeated on a.r.e. etc.
>
> But was there any mention that you can recall that Sawan himself said
> the line would be picked up by another in America? I have a strong
> feeling this is what I heard, but admit i could just have Kirpal mixed
> up with him.
>
> Since I joined I have never ever heard of anyone mentioning Sawan
> Singh except here that Julian Johnson's [PotM] master was Sawan, and
> where Eckists repeatedly denied Sawan Singh could be Sudar Singh.
>
> Apparently Patti may have a different opinion. Gosh, why aren't I
> surprised by this? <vbg>
>
> Personally, I think Sudar Singh, as in the name, is used to describe a
> number of quite different people that goes beyond mere name redactions
> by Paul that we know about. Yet at the same time it is also cover name
> for one key character who actually is the core and essential Sudar
> Singh, a true "eck" master, who guided Paul until he was 'handed over
> to' or became aware of this other character named Rebazar Tarzs.
>
> Just one example, is that I have it on good authority, ie my own, that
> Huzrat Inayat Khan, a Sufi teacher who arrived in the United States in
> 1910 later to establish and live in an ashram built for him on the
> west bank of the Seine in Paris France in the 1920's is, in fact, THE
> Paris *version* of Sudar Singh. Of course I could be totally wrong
> too. The again, ....... <G>
>
> > But I'll ask Patti again to see what she remembers.
>
> > Doug.
>
> Anyway, just so we don't entirely lose track of the original intent of
> the thread ...... in a quote by Kirpal Singh it included this :::
>
> *** Guru Nanak was asked: Who is your Guru (Master)? He replied:
> Shabd
> (Naam, the light and sound principle) is my Guru. ****
>
> Paul T in his letter dated 11th July 1957 states in part this :
>
> **** I believe that God is the Master - no one else *****
>
> Later Paul articulated in his teachings that the Mahanta is the ECK,
> is the highest purest bestest aspect of the ECK, iow the Shabd in
> Kirpal's & Nanak's nomenclature.
>
> MY personal take on this is that Paul and Kirpal Singh were not that
> far apart if at all, in fact they fundamentally AGREED on some key
> foundational principles from the 1950's thru to the 1970's.
>
> Harold has said in reference to Paul's involvement with Kirpal that
> "truth builds upon itself".
>
> That doesn't sound like a put down, let alone a condemnation of
> Kirpal, nor Sant Mat as a whole, but an acknowledgement of the truth
> they too presented the world then and now.
>
> In Harold's reference to Kirpal in a way "trying to possess truth", he
> was using that as an example for Eckists not to follow, that when
> Eckists start putting themselves above others and their teachings , be
> it Kirpal's, Sant Mat, or gee, even Islam, that then Eckankar has sunk
> to become nothing more than an everyday religion. It was a warning to
> Eckists to not behave in this way, and in other talks he criticizes
> Paul for doing the same thing about the catholics as being over the
> top and unnecessary. Harold's comments, imho, were not about giving
> Eckists a stick to use to hit Kirpal over the head with.
>
> At least, that is how I see it, but I have learnt to expect the most
> extraordinary things being said, despite what i may see as obvious,
> and how precious just having an opinion can be for some people here,
> no matter what it actually is.
>
> What exactly was there to *argue* about all these years? When one
> ignores the unimportant opinions of why this or that made by david
> lane, one can't help but recognise that he basically fleshed out much
> of the physical lineage if the ECK teachings, by connecting them back
> to Kirpal, and Sawan, and Shiv Dayal Singh .. and all the other
> similarities.
>
> Paul ha said as much and so has Harold. Paul put Kabir and Nanak down
> as two of his most important saints .... how do people in RSSB, Ruhani
> and others look upon these two historical giants as? Some even
> regularly mention Rumi and Shams and the broader Sufi tradition and
> the Muslim connections of both Kabir and Nanak's teachings ...
>
> Sufism to me appears like a Muslim version of the Bhakti tradition in
> Hinduism. In Eckankar we even have a Bhakti Marg but ask any good HI
> at the ECK centre and I bet 90% would say oh no, that has nothing to
> do with Bhakti in Indian religions, oh no, these are just funny words
> that Paul coined or changed the meaning of, these are all ECK terms,
> not Hindu at all. When actually, ................ well opinions
> abound, as does ways of expressing them, I guess.
>
> Gosh yes, what on earth is there to argue about here? What has David
> done that is so bad or wrong. Seems to me he is far more right than he
> is wrong about things that matter? What is there to be afraid of?
> Nothing! ;-)
>
> Cheers Sean
Yes I took time to read the whole thing. The whole response.
Good job Sean! (In my opinion)
It's nice to see more than one, two, or three people looking
at things from one, two, or three perspectives and speaking
like they are telling people about Eckankar history as if that
is all there is to it.
What I mean to say is, it's nice to hear from more than just
a few people, but from others, and who have actually done
some research!
I hear a lot of parrots. And parrots parroting other parrots. I
don't usually see many who have taken the time (and the
money at times) to actually research from a relatively un-
biased and neutral position looking at the history. What is
and what is not definitely known. And who are willing to go
where no one has gone before!
I was gald to have read that whole response. Dialogue is a
good thing, I think it can be.
Etznab
Doug
>
> > Once we go through and start researching things for ourselves, we
> > start to see this clearer. Then it becomes easier to see it in
> > ourselves and how we all do this. This makes it more conscious and we
> > can see the mistakes it leads to.
>
> > By the way, in case you are interested, I never felt it was my
> > responsibility to prove who Paul really was or what he was really
> > like, or what he actually thought or his true intentions. It isn't
> > possible to prove such things. The position I took was that David was
> > making all of these kinds of assertions and I only needed to show how
> > wrong his claims were and that there were other alternative theories
> > that fit the facts better. I knew there were many facts that
> > contradicted his claims. I just wanted to show how much information
> > there was to support a very different picture than the one David was
> > painting.
>
>
> > This doesn't mean I was making assertions about Paul and what he did.
> > I don't think that is necessary and I think it is hard to say for
> > sure. I only needed to show that David's representation was sorely
> > lacking and seriously slanted. I've always felt that we will never
> > know Paul completely, just as we never really know anyone fully. My
> > intention has never been to speak for Paul, but to show what seems to
> > be other real ways of seeing him that fit with the facts and what he
> > said, simply as a way of presenting perspectives that make sense. I
> > think each person needs to decide for themselves what they think.
>
> are still other alternative theories that may indeed fit the facts
> better. David or no David, I don't see this fundamental lay of the
> land changing in any way. I have always seen Etznab, as being someone
> wanting to move the thinking and the view point beyond a David-Doug /
> a.r.e. detractor-defender dichotomy.
Yes, I like that. But I think we each move it in our own direction and
we end up with each person having their own way of seeing it. Not one
or two or three perspectives, but everyone coming to their own
conclusions.
> There is more to this story that just David's wonky assertions,
> conclusions conjectures, and misunderstandings and limited knowledge
> at that time he wrote and revised his books. Everything , including
> the conclusions that David drew make total sense to me, now, and I
> can't honestly see myself doing it any other way, including the wild
> presumptions, that the actual way that David approached it.
>
> iow I can disagree with some of David's conclusions and yet totally
> understand and appreciate why it is he went that way. Same with Ford,
> but I am not as close to knowing him as a person as I am David.
I agree, it is easy to relate to everyone's point of view and how they
ended up where they did in their conclusions.
> Yes .. thx. Sorry but i suffering info overlaod still a little. :)
>
>
>
> > > Is it Harold says Paul sent/gave TTF to Kirpal in 1963? That's a very
> > > very long time after your letter quote from July 11 1957, and the
> > > timing of writing TTF, and that I think it would be accepted that
> > > Kirpal is mentioned in that manuscript, and not RT at all, yes?
>
> > No, I don't see any reason to rule out RT being part of the story.
>
Okay, I think I follow. What you were saying was not what is
reasonable, but what is the most popular opinion. Okay. I'm not sure
that is a valuable thing to be indentifying, and what concerns me
about even trying to identify this is that it still sounds like the
reason you think it is important is because it adds weight to what is
most reasonable. But it doesn't. It is only a reflection of the
reigning myth.
Here's the problem that I was trying to get at: David framed this
whole issue for more than a decade. This is why most people see things
with that framing.
When you introduce new information that throws out the old popular
opinions, it takes many, many years of people hearing the new
perspective over and over again before it really switches in their
minds. That's just how these things change in the public
consciousness. And that's a lot of what we are dealing with here. We
are trying to set aside the previous misnomers, whether from David or
popular Eck beliefs.
If you do that and if you get back to the facts, I don't see a reason
for saying that the clear patterns would indicate that Rebazar Tarzs
would not be in TTF. I'll spell out what I mean, since you asked:
First, the pattern of name changes that you mentioned cannot be used
to explain or demonstrate the creation of the name of Rebazar Tarzs or
Sudar Singh. This is the argument that David tried to make, but it
falls apart when you see that both of these Eck Masters were named and
being discussed publicly by Paul long before Paul started replacing
names. In other words, Paul did not start using RT and SS's names
because he wanted to start removing the names of Kirpal Singh and
others. He had already mentioned those names before while talking
about Kirpal.
So, the pattern of name replacement is that suddenly starting in
mid-1966, Paul felt the need to distance himself from Kirpal and never
mentions his name again. He still reuses the articles he had written
before, as he so often reused his writings, but changed them to drop
Kirpal's name. This is where he replaced the names with the Eck
Master's names.
Since this name replacement happened all at once starting in mid-1966,
it is no indicator of what was in the 1963 manuscript (that was
apparently written in 1957 - although we don't know if Paul typed up a
special manuscript for Kirpal in 1963 that could have been slightly
different from what he wrote in 1957).
So, we have to go back to the only facts that we have, and we can see
only one place where Paul mentions anything about TTF referring to
Kirpal Singh, which is in 1964 in the God Eater's article. And the
gist of that article is that although Kirpal did tell him a few things
about the other worlds, he had already been traveling into those
worlds for a long time before then, but it wasn't until he met Rebazar
Tarzs did he see things he had never seen before. In other words, the
mention of RT is in this same discussion of what he had been shown
inwardly. Paul doesn't specifically say that RT was mentioned in TTF,
but it is a continuation and a part of the whole discussion of which
TTF is a part. The references to RT are not something separate. They
are not another discussion. It is all one topic.
So, that suggests there is a very real possibility that RT's name was
in TTF manuscript.
If there is any pattern making it seem unexpected or not likely it is
the fact that we've seen no mention of RT or SS before 1963. Even if
Paul did refer to them in Letter's to Gail, that would still only give
us a reference back to 1962 at the earliest. We don't see an mention
of them in anything Paul published before then. So, if RT was in TTF
manuscript he wrote in 1957, it would be something we have never seen
before.
But I believe we only give this so much weight because we have seen it
from David's frame so long that this seems reasonable to rule out RT
being in the manuscript. In fact, we have such little informationn on
what Paul wrote before 1963 about any of his teachers that it is very
hard to say. Where did he ever write about Kirpal, publicly, before
1963? We know he wrote two articles for L Ron Hubbard, where he
appears to mention Hubbard, but he was doing this as a staff writer
for Hubbard. So, it would be odd if he didn't mention Hubbard. Yet, we
don't see Paul mentioning Kirpal in the Scientology articles, so we
wouldn't expect him to mention RT or SS either.
That's why I found this new article by Artemis so interesting, because
it does show a reference to Ruhani Satsang and Radha Soami, but no
mention of Kirpal Singh. Again, this isn't surprising, since he is
publishing this in the magazine of another spiritual teaching. But,
remember, this was during that 1-2 year time period when he was
studying with Kirpal. This was also the timeframe when Paul wrote the
articles for Scientology, and he made no mention of Kirpal's name
there either. So, the pattern from what I can see is that Paul doesn't
mention the names of his other teachers unless writing in their
publications until 1964, when he starts to talk about his own
teaching.
I see no value in trying to determine what the popular opinion has
been, when it has been framed with so many significantly mistaken
concepts based on incomplete information. That's the whole reason for
going through these facts so carefully to dispell the myths and bring
it back to what we know.
> There actually good reasons for some of the the things that David and
> others conclude, that are fair and reasonable opinions to hold.
>
> > In fact, I think the only reason people have jumped to the conclusion
> > that the manuscript of TTF that Paul gave to Kirpal had no mention of
> > Rebazar is because this is how David first presented this. He doesn't
> > actually know, since David never saw the manuscript. From everything
> > I've heard, it is all based upon Kirpal's quote, where he said that
> > Paul took out his name and replaced it with the name of another
> > master. David assumed that this meant throughout the whole book. But
> > in fact, it isn't even clear that Kirpal ever read the manuscript.
> > This sounds more as if one of Kirpal's followers reports back to him
> > that Paul had published the TTF and when Kirpal asks if his name is
> > mentioned, and finds out that it wasn't, he makes his statement.
>
> > That doesn't tell us if RT was in the original manuscript or not.
>
> > Here is why I think it is possible that RT's name might have been in
> > the original TTF: The one place where Paul mentions the TTF and the
> > connection with Kirpal, is that article on the God Eaters. He says
> > that Kirpal spoke to him briefly when he took him into the other
> > worlds and he wrote about this in his book, TTF. In that same article,
> > he says that he had long been traveling into the other worlds before
> > this, but it was only when he met Rebazar Tarzs that he saw things he
> > had never seen before - or something like that.
>
> And yet Doug, Paul does not say that he wrote about Rebazar in the TTF
> book as well as Kirpal, does he? His reference to RT here has got
> nothing at all to do with the Tigers Fang manuscript that he sent to
> Kirpal, does it?
>
> Paul's beliefs, and spiritual journey etc etc is not part of this.
> [ and do i have a copy of the god eaters article ??? probably
> somewhere, no tie to check now sorry ]
Actually, as I said above, his reference to Rebazar is part of the
story and is not something separate. He mentions TTF only to show that
he has written about the other worlds before, and that Kirpal had
shown him a few things, but it wasn't until Rebazar that he really was
shown things he had never seen before. Then he goes beyond discussing
the other worlds and starts to talk about one of those unique things
he had never seen before: The God Eaters at the spritiual cities.
If you read the way Paul is putting this, he is giving credit to
Kirpal as a teacher who can take people into the inner worlds. Paul
says he had been doing this since his youth, so he had seen a lot of
these things before. But RT was the one who really broke open the
doors for him to show him things he had never seen before. If this is
true, then how much of TTF is connected with Kirpal? Quite a bit of
that story comes across as being all new experiences for him. Yet he
says that Kirpal only spoke "briefly" about the inner worlds, when he
talks about Kirpal's connection to TTF.
I wouldn't say this is strong enough to say we should expect RT's name
in TTF, but it seems to me that way over-reaching to say it is not
likely.
> > In other words, he mentions both Kirpal and RT in this one reference.
> > There is no other reference about Kirpal and TTF from Paul that was
> > published. So, if this one reference is representative, then RT was an
> > integral part right from the beginning.
>
> > In other words, I think it is still an open question.
>
> iow, we just don't know, yet :)
Exactly.
> The problem being that one simple fact is able to knock over every
> theory as to why RT may be included in Paul's original TTF manuscript,
> that was reportedly sent to Kirpal in 1963 [ most likely & most
> plausible given what is known, yes?? ]
>
> Somewhere I have the date for this article ... the godeaters, isn't
> this the first time that Paul published RT's name? orion magazine or
> something? as opposed to it probably being included in LTG, but we
> don't know which reference as there were many changes made before
> publication in the early 70's. anywa, that's a side isue imho.
>
> That's an important date to flag on a time line imho. and see how it
> can be moved with newly found facts in the future. iow it should tell
> people what to look *for*, as opposed to what they should *think*
> about it.
The God Eaters was published in the Psychic Observer in November 1964.
I think the challenge here is wiping the slate clean to see what we
know based on the currently known facts. There is way too much
holdover from what the popular myths have been.
> > > Kirpal's public comments don't come until 1970, an entire 7 years
> > > after he was supposedly sent the book. Never have I heard from Kirpal
> > > that he had read the manuscript TTF, but I do know he read Paul's
> > > letters.
>
> > Makes sense to me.
>
> But what does it mean?
>
> 15 years after initiation, and 7 years after seeing his name removed
> from a book by Paul, 5 years after writing to the Parapsychology
> foundation, Kirpal makes a minute ie tiny minsiescule anecdotal
> teaching comment to a Chela asking him a specific question face to
> face, and it's blown out of all proportion.
No, I don't think it has been blown out of proportion and I don't
think it was a tiny side comment.
We know that Kirpal had been bad mouthing Paul behind his back since
1956. David has quoted some of Kirpal's close followers who said this.
Plus we can see Russell Perkins comments and see how critical Kirpal
actuall was. Plus, there was plenty of things that Kirpal said that
were not included in his Heart to Heart Talks book. He chose to
include that. David said he had also heard this from others. Even
David admits that he now has a hard time relating to Kirpal's extreme
position. David said he found Kirpal's comments insulting. And it was
weird that he would speak so critically about Paul and so often behind
his back while keeping such a friendly face toward Paul in all of
their letters.
I think you are not leaning with the facts if you think this was a
minor comment.
> ooooh aaaaah, kirpal is being *critical in public* .. OMG <smile>
> Strewth, as we say in Australia ... why wouldn't he be? Just this time
> it was recorded. The same thing happened to Paul, where on the spot
> comments that were appropriate in the setting have been later
> published and looked upon as if they are an Pronouncment to all the
> World, in a pseudo official approval .. well, imagine people, he was
> the LEM, he must have know n his comments would be published,
> therefore he must have said this so I "Mr Important" could know what
> he said and felt then.
I think all of Paul's public comments should be treated with the same
relevance as Kirpal's. They both represent what they said and what
they were thinking. These are the most relevant facts we have.
However, it is most important when we see a pattern, and not just one
statement. In this case, Kirpal's criticism of those who once followed
him and then went off to write their own books is something he did
over and over again. Paul was just one of his targets. In all the
cases, he spoke about his ex-students as if they had totally fallen,
spiritually, and this showed the importance of never leaving the
Master. This was a recurring message of his.
It is interesting to contrast this with Charan Singh, who was much
more polite and respectful about what he said, when asked about Paul's
books.
> And it's not as if Paul T was never ever 'critical" of someone or some
> group in writing, in a talk, in a book ... like ever. Harold did
> mention profusely as one example Paul's feelings towards the Catholic
> Church if I recall. ;-)
Paul was often openly critical about trends in society, but he was
amazingly polite when it came to people. He was not confrontive and
spoke overly positive about almost everyone. I do remember him
speaking in a somewhat critical manner about JR Hinkins, but only
because JR was acting as if he was getting messages from Paul and that
Paul was telling him that he would be Paul's successor when Paul died.
Paul's point was that this is what happens when you are successful.
Paul never suggested that JR was a lost soul because he left Paul's
teaching. Paul said he found some of his antics quite humorous, but he
had his lawyer write JR a letter because he needed to stop referring
to Eckankar and Paul as if he spoke for them, which he didn't. So, the
reason Paul made a personal comment was only because JR had made it
personal and Paul was correcting the mold that JR was trying to
create.
> I have no problem with Paul in any aspect of his life. I find it
> increasingly obvious how much [unconscious] spin is involved about it.
> that's all. How not just David but others make up all sorts of things
> in the absence of any substantial knowledge about it. I am seeking
> some realism, and some balance in all of this swirling currents from
> the past, and the likes of the dramas with Ford and Harold, and all
> the verbiages about it. I want a fresh look at all this. I'm am seeing
> lots of storms in tea cups, the more I look, and i have only been at
> it seriously for 10 weeks now. It's good. It actually helps to look
> with fresher eyes, and with the all the additional info that has come
> to light by people like you over the last dozen years, imho.
That's why I'm getting into the details. My comments are not just
opinions I've formed based on feelings. I am trying to stay as close
to the facts as possible, and what we know.
This also lets us hold good discussions on things we can talk about.
You really can't say much about opinions, since everyone is entitled
to their own. But we can talk about the known facts and what they tell
us.
> Yes, and yet there is also an obvious flip side Doug. Deeply committed
> Eckists have also deeply framed their own beliefs about this as much
> as David based upon nothing more than their own *framing*. That of
> course is understandable and quite natural too. But still, it is real,
> and it has it's own inertia and gravity to it.
Exactly. That's why I departed from both when writing my book and kept
bringing it back to the facts.
I think the difference in what we are saying is that I've spent years
looking at these things, and you have now been studying them, as you
said, for a few months.
It took me years before I realized how wrong my own opinions had been,
and how much my beliefs had been shaped by David's claims. It takes
time to adjust our ideas, so I'm not surprised you would keep pushing
back on me, based on the assumption that I'm the one who is being
influenced by what I want to believe.
> > If we had never heard about any of these things before, I think we
> > would be asking all kinds of questions and everything would seem hard
> > to understand. But the problem is that David laid down a heavy trip
> > and we have to first push aside all of those things that so many
> > simply accepted as facts.
>
> There's a lot of truth in that for sure. That did in fact happen from
> what I saw with my own eyes. No problem with this at all, I agree.
>
> Except I don't see it as as big a deal as is being portrayed. Why?
> because if one was to start with a clean slate, I sure than even with
> the extra info now available post 1977 and 1983 when David started,
> that the fundamental questions, and the unknowns as why this and not
> that still prevail in spades.
>
> IOW I am saying bluntly, that the initial questions raised by David's
> inquiries and the tidbits of facts he managed to compile are as valid
> today as in 1977.
>
> The landscaping may be different, but the road one is led down is the
> exact same off the beaten track that david first walked down. People's
> opinions for good or ill, really don't change this, imho. ;-)
Here I disagree with you. I find very little of David's original
accusations have stood up over time.
The only real issue I see from the things he originally stressed over
and over again is the plagiarism issue.
There was no reason for him to suggest that Paul broke from Kirpal
because Paul wanted to make money and Kirpal's teaching said that
Masters should not make money from their teaching. This is just BS.
There was no reason for him to suggest that Paul broke from Kirpal
because Kirpal dissed TTF.
I agree that I can understand why David did believe those things, but
if you look at the facts we no today, these and most of the other
accusations he made simply don't hold together.
And you have to remember, that so many of the really minor things,
like issues about his birth date, were all built on a framework of
trying to overwhelm people with so many examples of immoral and
unethical behavior that you couldn't believe a thing Paul said, when
in fact it is David that we can't believe because he is wrong far more
often than Paul, if you compare the two.
I can agree that there are clearly questions about Paul's story of
visiting Sudar Singh with his sister in Paris and going on to his
ashram. The dates don't hold together. But this would never have been
an issue without all the other accusations. It is such a minor issue,
and stories are often combined together or told out of order for the
purpose of telling a story. But everything has now been cast into the
framework of a criminal investigation, where the prosecution does
everything they can to make the other person look bad, and it ends up
seriously distorting the truth.
I don't think that this is ever an approach you should take if truth
is what you are interested in. Lawyers are the worst example of
delivering truth. They have raised distortion to a fine art.
I agree that the question of when RT and SS actually entered into
Paul's life, and if these were his most important teachers, then why
do we not see their names mentioned before 1963 - these are good
questions. But I don't see anything damning here. It is more just
interesting to help us understand Paul better. The future of Eckankar
doesn't hang in the balance. But it does help give us insights into
the way Paul saw these things.
>
> > For example, David claimed that Paul had been a student of Kirpal's
> > for over 10 years. He said this over and over again for over a decade.
> > Now, the facts don't support that any more. It seems much more likely
> > that what Paul said was correct, that he actually only studied under
> > Kirpal for 1-2 years, not more than 10 years. But that he and Kirpal
> > kept a friendly relationship for more than 10 years.
>
> These are side-line issues imho Doug, of little importance. The
> underlying thing David was always alluding to by such examples as
> this, is the the direct similarities to Kirpal's, to RSSB, to the
> parent faith and al the way back to kabir and Nanak that Paul's
> "teaching" was.
>
> The fact about initiation is simply an objective item of proof that
> Paul did indeed study with Kirpal.
>
> Why? Because DARWIN basically totally denied it in writing.
> Why? because Paul had redacted Kirpal's name from previously published
> works.
>
> Why blame David for this? He did force Darwin or Paul do what they
> chose to do? He was simply investigating the "claims" and then
> reporting the hard facts that he did find, and then offering his
> opinions.
>
> Sounds like every single post on a.r.e., and every single book or talk
> ever given on Paul. ie David is normal, even if some of his
> conclusions are out there. :-)
Sorry, you are overlooking way too many things on David's side, while
focusing unnecessarily critically on Paul's side. I don't see why this
is fairer, unless you are intentionally trying to play the devil's
advocate.
The reason David talked about over 10 years of study was not just to
illustrate the similarities between the teachings. David knows that
there are just as many differences as similarities, and that when it
comes to religion, you can find just as many similarities between the
Sikh religion and Radhasoami, and between Sufism and Radhasoami, and
the Gnostic teachings and Radhasoami. In other words, that doesn't
prove the point David was trying to prove at all, and he knows that.
He was saying, and he said this quite directly, that Eckankar was
basically a fraudulent rip-off of the original teaching, which was
what he had learned from Kirpal and then respun into an Americanized
version. Paul was hiding the real source of his teaching, which was
from Kirpal, and the fact that Eckankar is really a poor copy of
Radhasoami.
If Paul had studied with Kirpal for over 10 years, and he only stopped
the day he wanted to sell his own teachings, in order to make money -
well, if this was actually true, then he goes a long way toward
proving his point. However, when we find out that Paul only studied
for 1-2 years with Kirpal, and they he had widely studied long and
deeply with a long list of other teachings, and had been studying
religious teachings of all kinds since his youth - well the picture
changes considerably. Then we can suddenly appreciate how extensive
the differences are between Eckankar and Radhasoami.
On of the things that most Eckists do not realize is that even though
so many of the words are similar, how different the whole texture and
tone of the teaching is. In other words, it is easy to swallow this
story that David sold because a shallow reading does show many
remarkable similarities. But the differences are far more significant
than it appears.
I've spent years with Radhasoami groups and so I'm speaking from my
own experiences. The whole tenor and framework of the teachings are
far more different than they are similar. Anyone who doesn't see this
is just being fooled by the framing that David has created with
decades of reinforced messages designed to hit his points over and
over again until they've been driven like nails into the psyche of
people. It is quite an extensive work of propaganda. And it is so far
from the actual truth that I could never agree with what you are
saying here.
Do you realize that David in his book says that only ethical thing for
Harold to do was to disband Eckankar and honestly admit that it was a
fraud?
Do you realize that David implied that Gail had said what Paul created
was a fraud? She denies this and thanked me for getting the story
about Paul right.
Now, if you are just being generous to David and giving him space and
relating to why he might have believed everything he wrote - well, I
agree with this. But then you should be taking the same approach with
Paul. Why treat Paul's case like a clinical examination when you just
give away this free get out of jail card to David?
I believe all of this happens because people don't realize how deeply
David's myth has been absorbed into the psyche. Unfortunately, it just
isn't the truth.
>
> > So, now when we hear that Paul brought Gail around to meet Kirpal, he
> > is bringing her to meet a friend. That doesn't seem hard to understand
> > at all, to me.
>
> Nor does others seeing it differently, so hard to understand either.
>
> > I never said that Paul wanted Gail to see how far Kirpal's teaching
> > was from his own. I'm not sure if that was what you were implying, but
> > I would never agree with that. That doesn't sound like something Paul
> > would do. He was not one to criticize others or the focus on the
> > negative.
>
> Except when he did, you mean? :)
Easy to make jokes like this, but it is better to give examples. Show
me 3-4 cases where Paul made criticisms of specific people. I think
you are making a statement here based on a very general idea that
everyone criticizes people. What I've seen is how incredibly far Paul
goes in avoiding any personal criticism, and how much respect he gives
everyone and how positively he speaks about everyone.
> and no I wasn't implying the above at all.
That's what I thought. But you are still taking a position here and I
think we see things differently because we have actually seen
different things because of the difference in our studies.
That's why specifics are so critical. They provide the actual
examples. Generalities are not good at helping us understand a person
well. If we make the practice of making sure we have real examples to
back up the comments we make, then we sometimes find out that things
were not as we thought. Make a study of Paul's talks and writings to
see where and when he makes personal criticisms. I think you will be
surprised.
> > Paul was just starting to publish information about Eckankar at this
> > time of late 1963. He probably talked with Kirpal about it. Kirpal
> > probably had heard about it from his other followers as well, since
> > that kind of information traveled fast. But as David tells us, Kirpal
> > always seems to speak positively to Paul, and so we can see why Paul
> > walks away thinking they are friends and Kirpal is sympathetic with
> > what Paul is doing.
>
> I am not so sure that David is referring to any communications or
> comments by either in 1963. My impression was david was referring to
> the 1950's, but i could be wrong here.
You are wrong here, Sean. David described the letters they shared
until mid-1966. It was friendly until then.
> > Under those conditions, why wouldn't he bring Gail by to meet him?
> > Paul thought he was an ally. This is why he spoke openly and
> > positively about Kirpal, as he thought Kirpal felt the same way, and
> > they could help each other. Paul seemed more than willing to say
> > glowing things about Kirpal.
>
> > In fact, Paul seems to come away from his meeting with Kirpal in 1963
> > with such a positive feeling that he sends Kirpal his TTF manuscript.
>
> aha, so now, you think he sent this TTF manuscript AFTER Gail's
> initiation, and after Paul probably talking with Kirpal at that time,
> in SF in late 1963??? I thought that was my theory? :-( LOL
I always thought that. Partly because I always heard that Paul had
sent the manuscript to Kirpal. I never heard anyone say that Paul gave
it to Kirpal when they met.
Someone proposed (I thought it was you) that Paul might have given it
to Kirpal when they met in 1963, and I agreed that it is a
possibility, but I've never heard anyone say it happened that way,
while I've heard it from a few sources that Paul sent the manuscript
to Kirpal.
> You see, the impression I always had was that it was something that
> was sent to Kirpal in the 50's, ala not long after he had written it.
> I have no idea why I thought that though.
I can see why you might think that. Most people don't write a book and
then sit on it for 6 years. But in Paul's case, that is what he did
with most of his books.
All the reported facts point to Paul sending it to Kirpal in 1963.
>
> But as i stand here now, in 2010, and i know more about Paul in 1963
> than I used to, and I know more about what was written and when ....
> well i can think of NO REASON that Paul would send Kirpal Singh a
> manuscript that spoke about Rebazar Tarzs from cover to cover in late
> 1963.
Okay, here's a reason: Paul started openly talking about his new
teaching, Eckankar starting in mid-1963, with his Cliff Hanger
articles.
My guess is that Paul was not hiding this from Kirpal, but in fact was
open about it with him. Kirpal certainly knew about it, since he found
out about everything any of his previous students were doing. Word
traveled fast.
I think Paul was impressed by how positively Kirpal remained in al
their conversations and the letters they exchanged. This convinced
Paul, exactly as he said in The Flute of God, that Kirpal was
sympathetic with what Paul was doing.
So, after he publicly starts writing about his own teaching, he meets
with Kirpal, brings Gail, they have a friendly discussion and Kirpal
seems supportive. So, why wouldn't he send TTF with RT's name?
After all, saying positive things about Kirpal in TTF was a way of
giving Kirpal credit and promoting him as a real teacher. Paul
probably thought that Kirpal would see this as a friendly gesture, as
it was intended. But I don't think Paul ever tried to pretend that he
as acting as if Kirpal was his Master at the time. Paul wasn't asking
Kirpal for permission to teach (which is what Kirpal thought Paul
should have done).
In fact, I think Paul goes out of his way to talk about the
similarities with Eckankar as a way of keeping a friendly relationship
with Kirpal. That's why he would write The Far Country with many
sentences being similar to The Path of the Masters. Yet, from
everything I've heard, The Far Country mentions Rebazar Tarzs from its
first draft. And when he finishes writing TFC, he starts mentioning RT
in his articles.
I don't see anything inconsistent or at odds with what happened. I
think the reason you find it hard to accept is purely because of how
deeply the Lane myth has worked its magic.
I can see either way as possibilities.
> And that if he did send a book with RT mentioned in it from cover to
> cover, in every chapter, then I find it pretty hard to believe that
> even if Kirpal did not read the entire book, that surely he would at
> least have noticed one mention of RT there.
>
> And yet, here we have Kirpal in 1970 specifically talking about a book
> TTF, and how his name was changed to another guru's name.
>
> Can you follow my train of thought here Doug? It just makes NO sense
> to me if this was possible that RT was in TTF he sent to Kirpal that
> we wouldn't know about it by now from some source. It's just such a
> deal breaker imho. People may have their opinions and theories, but
> for me things need to fit in the context of the moment, where people
> are acting rational, or what's the point of such opinions?
>
> Why? Because what your theory is suggesting here is just like what the
> breakaways from Eckankar have done in essence. But before they did,
> they sent Harold their manuscript which spoke about these other
> masters who were over-riding Harold's own claims. Kirpal was not such
> a patient man, from my reading with his replies to his chelas.
>
> A seven year silence of Kirpal knowing that RT was the moving
> character in TTF book, doesn't sound like Kirpal or any master
> receiving such a manuscript from a devoted "chela" to me.
No, I'm not following your train of thought. You are suggesting it
just doesn't make sense and doesn't work, but I don't see why. Can you
explain this again?
I think what you are saying is that something different would have
happened than what did happen. In other words, if Kirpal had seen RT's
name in the book, he would have in some way acted differently. But
what did he say or do that suggests the book did not have RT's name?
Would he have been MORE critical of Paul and TTF? I see nothing that
indicates RT's name could not have been in the book.
The other thing you saying here is that Paul was submitting the book
to Kirpal as his chela. Why? I don't see anything to suggest that Paul
was "pretending" to be Kirpal's chela in 1963. I can certainly see
Paul speaking positively about Kirpal and what Kirpal was doing. But
why would Paul have pretended to be his chela in 1963, when he had
already started publicly talking about his teaching called Eckankar?
No chela should ever go off and start teaching their own teaching
without permission of the Master. Ever.
>
> There is nothing that i have seen that proves Paul was not still
> officially a chela of Kirpal's in 1963 either. Ok, maybe Paul didn't
> look privately to Kirpal as his teacher anymore, but that doesn't
> mean that Paul had told him this in 1963 when he took Gail along.
>
> Basically I think you are making far to many assumptions here,
> bringing in info from other aspects of Paul and then assuming that
> they fit this moment in time of Gail being Initiated, and Paul sending
> Kirpal the TTF manuscript.
Are you sure you aren't just stuck seeing it the way David told the
story?
Paul writes to one friend as early as 1957 that he was no longer
following Kirpal. He tells another person in 1958 the same thing (Roy
Eugene Davis). He was back to living in Swami Premananda's ashram in
1958. He was writing for L Ron Hubbard even in 1957. Then he starts to
publicly, and for the first time, talking about his own teaching
called Eckankar in mid 1963, before meeting with Kirpal.
You really think that Paul pretends he is still Kirpal's chela? Isn't
his Cliff Hanger articles proof that he isn't? What chela would go off
saying that they had their own teaching called Eckankar, which was the
teaching of the Cliff Hangers? That is an article by an individual,
not a chela if Kirpal Singh. The whole nature of the article is about
individuality - which was the exact opposite to what Kirpal taught. If
you study Kirpal's writings, especially later in his life, you can see
that he was actually quite a traditionalist. In fact, I would say his
brand of teaching was more like a continuation of the Sikh religion he
was raised in, than in Radhasoami.
Let's talk some more about this. Can you give any facts to suggest
that Paul was acting as if he was still Kirpal's chela in late 1963?
Here's a big problem with that theory: We know that the letter writing
was friendly until mid-1966. This was long after Paul officially
launched Eckankar. This shows no break between the two until mid-1966,
and this seems to be caused by the fact that Paul discovers Kirpal is
openly criticizing Paul. But there is no sign of this in the letters
they send between the two of them. And we know that Kirpal had been
criticizing Paul since 1956 or 57, based on the letters that David
shared. So, nothing changes for Kirpal after Paul starts promoting his
own teaching and presenting himself as a spiritual teacher.
If Paul was pretending to be Kirpal's chela, then wouldn't it have hit
the fan sometime by 1965 when it is clearly and absolutely obvious
that he has his own teaching? Why doesn't Kirpal break off ties then?
The fact that Kirpal never does reproach Paul and in fact continues to
pretend as if he is sympathetic in 1965 means that he could just as
easily do the same thing in 1963 when Paul starts to talk about
Eckankar. It proves that Kirpal isn't showing a reaction to Paul. This
is exactly why Paul thought Kirpal was being supportive.
From this, I think we can see that Kirpal was the one who was
pretending. However, there is nothing to indicate that Paul wasn't
perfectly honest and open about what he was doing.
If you can think of any facts to suggest otherwise, I'd be interested
to hear them. Sometimes during discussions like this, we can actually
make these things clearer.
>
> It's not 1971 when Paul translated, it is late 1963. Paul was not the
> exact same person nor held the same opinions/beliefs as he did in 1971
> then. What you say may well be true, but there is not enough basic
> info upon which to base such theories, imho. Just too many gaps.
I agree that Paul changed in a lot of ways from 1963 to 1971. But I
think Kirpal way over estimated how important he was to Paul, and I
don't think Paul ever had anywhere near the feeling that he owed some
great debt to Kirpal or that he saw himself as Kirpal's chela at any
time in the 1960's.
So, the question comes down to whether Paul was pretending to be
Kirpal's chela in 1963? We can see that Kirpal was clearly pretending
to be supportive when he wasn't.
Kirpal even asks Paul in 1966 if he would help him get a book
published in the US. Nor does Kirpal ever tell Paul that he doesn't
like TTF and isn't going to print it.
I think it is quite likely that Paul gave Kirpal TTF because he wanted
Kirpal to see what he was going to be teaching. I think it is most
likely that Paul was open about what he was doing, knowing that Kirpal
would hear about it anyway, so it would be crazy to pretend
otherwise.
But as you say, there are still a number of missing pieces. But I
can't think of anything to indicate that Paul was pretending.
>
> > And then immediately turns around and starts writing The Far Country,
> > which is easy to see as being probably the closest thing to what
> > Kirpal thought of anything Paul ever wrote.
>
> > But I don't think this means Paul was writing this for Kirpal's Ruhani
> > Satsang. I think that Gail had stepped forward to encourage him to do
> > something with his writings, which is something he had been waiting
> > for. And then it seemed Kirpal was encouraging him as well.
>
> > If he had known that Kirpal really didn't agree with what Paul was
> > doing and was open critical about it to his closest followers, I don't
> > Paul would ever have brought Gail to meet him, or would he have sent
> > him his TTF manuscript, and it is highly likely The Far Country would
> > have taken a very different path.
>
> Well there is an old saying "keep your friends close, and your enemies
> even closer." maybe this was Kirpal's MO ?? I don't know ... LOL
>
> anyway, all the previous section about paul, Kirpal and Gail while
> interesting and possible, doesn't add up to much substantial one could
> hang their hat upon.
Look for patterns. How did Paul treat Swami Premananda? How did he
treat L Ron Hubbard? Or all of his friends from the many spiritual
groups he knew?
He stayed friendly with all of them. He speaks positively about all of
them, but as the letter in 1957 showed, he was still open about how he
felt. It was clear from that letter that he had long before told about
how he was studying with Kirpal, and it also told how he had come to
realize that Kirpal did not have the path. Roy Davis remembers clearly
Paul saying the same thing. In all of his personal communications,
Paul seems to be open and honest, from what I've seen.
>
>
>
> > > > I agree that it is possible Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript of TTF
> > > > when he met him in 1963, although Harold said that he sent it to him.
> > > > So, it could have been after their meeting as well.
>
> > > I think the longer it is after 1963 the more odd it looks to others
> > > overall.
>
> > Why do you think it might have been after 1963? I haven't heard of any
> > suggestions it was after 1963.
>
> Oops, you have misunderstood what i said there.
>
> I am not suggesting it was after 1963, only that the longer it is
> after 1957, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and even 63, the more odd it looks to
> others. The less sense it makes, imo, to send Kirpal such a work the
> later it is sent to Kirpal, knowing where Paul was at in 1963, and
> then 64, 65, 66.
>
> And it makes no sense at all to most people I would think, to be
> sending Kirpal a book that repeatedly speaks about Rebazar Tarzs in
> TTF, ever, no matter how positive Paul believed or wrote that Kirpal
> looked upon "his work" favourably. Seems all a tad naive imho.
> talking baout what we think paul's intentions were, doesn't help much
> here.
I think we should be discussing why Paul sent the TTF manuscript to
Kirpal. Why?
What if he sent it so that Kirpal could see what Paul was going to be
teaching? What if he told Kirpal about his intentions?
Then it all seems to fit. Granted it is strange that Paul waited 6
years before showing anyone TTF. But it was even longer before he
published Dialogues With the Master, The Flute of God and The Far
Country after he wrote those. So, this is just something that Paul
did.
I once thought that Paul gave Kirpal TTF in hopes that Kirpal might
publish it. But if that was true, then you would expect Kirpal to tell
Paul he wasn't going to and he would send back TTF. And it really
doesn't make sense that if his original plans were to have Kirpal
publish TTF, that Paul would launch right into promoting his own
teaching.
David originally thought that there was a break-up between Kirpal and
Paul over TTF. This would explain why Paul sent the manuscript and why
he then started promoting Eckankar afterwards. But in fact Paul had
started talking about Eckankar and his Cliff Hanger philosophy before
he met with Kirpal in 1963 and probably before he sent Kirpal TTF. So,
now we need a new reason for why Paul would give his manuscript to
Kirpal.
I think it is possible that he did this to show Kirpal the depth
behind the teaching he was going to present as Eckankar. This way
Kirpal could feel comfortable that Paul's teaching was in line with
Kirpal's own philosophy, so that Paul could openly mention Kirpal as
one of his teachers. In other words, if Kirpal saw clearly what Paul
was going to teach and he disagreed with it, he could ask Paul not to
mention his name and he could wish Paul well but ask him not to
involve Kirpal in what he was doing. When Kirpal responded in a
supportive way, Paul must have felt that Kirpal was okay with what
Paul was doing.
In this scenario, there would be no problem with RT's name being in
TTF. Paul would have been showing Kirpal what he was planning to
openly teach, which was going to include RT's name, along with
Kirpal's.
See if you can find any reasons this would fall apart based on the
available facts.
>
> The questions are simple really, when did Paul write the manuscript.
> When did Paul give it to kirpal. When did paul ask for it back. When
> did Paul get it back? Was RT included in this original manuscript? And
> when did Paul publish it?
I think we know all of these or at least have facts to answer them,
except whether RT was included in the original manuscript.
> These are all basic historical questions, that can only be resolved
> with straight-forward evidence, not theory nor opinion. The only known
> known is when it was Published. This is the extent of my current
> interest. <G>
I wouldn't say that was the only known known.
We have published articles showing Paul talking about writing the TTF
in 1957 at least in two places.
We have a published book that shows Kirpal saying when he received the
TTF manuscript from Paul.
We've heard from David that he saw the letter in 1966 when Paul asked
for the TTF back, and Kirpal says he sent it back after Paul asked for
it back.
I suppose you could say that we don't believe what anyone says, but
then why not question whether the publishing date printed on the first
edition books is a lie as well?
> After such facts are known it may then be worthwhile to proceed into
> the realm of why, or what does it mean, or what could his intentions
> have been? But these are all very personal private questions, imho,
> not historical ones. I am sticking to the historical, having abandoned
> the realm of opinion for a while because that has been going no where
> for years but in a loop. ;-o
This may all be new to you, but some of us have been doing this for
more than 10 years.
There are quite a few facts available. They don't fill all the holes
by a long shot. But you can often rule out possible explanations
because they make no sense given what we know. You've tried this a few
times above, but I think you are not aware of all the facts that well
yet.
So, this is new to you and you need to go through this to arrive at
your own conclusion. But some of us have been down this path before.
>
>
>
> > > > I think you are right that the reference in LTG III about Gail getting
> > > > her initiation the year before is mostly likely referring to Kirpal. I
> > > > haven't had enough time with Gail to ask her this. We've only talked
> > > > briefly. But Patti Simpson Rivinus told me that when she was
> > > > publishing the Letters to Gail in The ECK World News, which was the
> > > > first place they were seen before being published in book form, she
> > > > said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
> > > > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > > > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > > > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
> > > OK. Though I had never heard, or rather recall, anyone mentioning that
> > > Sawan's name had been redacted to Sudar before. Any ideas, besides the
> > > Introduction to Eckankar book, where that happened?
>
> > > So that's why so many had previously thought it could be Sawan,
> > > aha, ... well this makes sense that's for sure. I am hoping to come to
> > > a definitive list of all the known instances that Paul's original
> > > names were redacted to Sudar Singh either by him or others.
>
> > Patti told me that she thought there were more references to Sawan
> > Singh than Kirpal Singh.
>
> And why wasn't I told? :-)
>
> Why wasn't the Swords of the Sugmad told on a.r.e. in the 1990's? LOL
>
> MORE references to Sawan Singh redacted into Sudar Singh, than were
> ever Kirpal, or another. Mmmm, now that wasn't in The Whole Truth book
> was it? i can't remember, but you would know Doug.
No, I didn't include it because she was going on a memory. I tried to
leave out impressions like this if I couldn't find some real facts to
back them up.
I could never find anyone who could explain to me why they thought
Sawan Singh was the real Sudar Singh, but I heard a lot of old timers
say it. So, I left that out as well.
Otherwise, it is too easy to get lost in an ocean of myths.
>
> > She said that she never felt that Kirpal
> > Singh was Sudar Singh, but she did wonder if Sawan Singh was.
>
> iow, even Patti doesn't know who Sudar Singh was yet!
That's right, and like so many other old timers, many of them were
quite open about it.
Patti has always been incredibly honest about everything. She
corrected me on some things I had gotten wrong and just told it as it
was.
>
> Darwin says he saw a painting of Sudar Singh, that he was a real
> person and wasn't Kirpal.
> Harold still says he doesn't know, but it wasn't Sudarshan Singh.
> You say you don't know, or if you do, you've avoided it entirely
> [ unless I have missed it]
I never heard about this painting, but how could a painting be any
kind of proof?
I really don't know who Sudar Singh was. I never met him - not even on
the inner.
> Etznab says he doesn't know, and asks if anyone does, and he gets
> abused for his trouble and told to check it out on the inner because
> that's the only thing that counts! <smile>
>
> Do you understand why i don;t buy the notion that we have a mystery
> here because of the way that David "framed" it? <smile>
>
> Doug, Doug, ........ what is going on here? :-)
I think what is going on here is that you are still new to putting all
these facts together. ;-)
But I'm patient.
And I too get abused.
Etznab needs to just stick to his guns and accept that there will
always be people who criticize everyone who strikes out on their own.
>
> > And
> > there were indeed a lot of early students of Paul's who wondered the
> > same thing. That might have been what influenced Patti as well.
> > Remember, Dr. Bluth was a follower of Sawan Singh,
>
> no actually I thought he was a Kirpal recruit actually. ... but
> whatever.
No, he was opposed to Kirpal, like many of the Beas Satsangis who saw
Kirpal was an invalid offshoot.
>
> and by the time
>
> > Patti joined Eckankar there was already friction with Kirpal's
> > followers.
>
> which pretty well shows that most people are in fact rational actors,
> and that for Kirpal and/or his US leadership to be a little upset with
> Paul doing workshops at the Parapsychology Foundation place in, let's
> see 1964 wasn't it [?] around a year or so after Gail's first
> Initiation by Kirpal in CA, that Kirpal and his people may have been
> almost forced by the circumstances in front of their eyes to look upon
> Paul's work as a cheap copy in 1964/65, [ ala Michael Owens or anyone
> else for that matter ] seems to me at least, an incredibly normal
> response, well reasoned, very plausible, and completely rational at
> the time.
You really want to keep looking at this through David's lenses, don't
you?
Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt.
Yes, we can see why Kirpal's followers thought Paul was a fraud. It is
easy to see this, since Kirpal openly said so, and you know how chelas
tend to believe everything their Master says.
That's exactly why they jumped to the conclusion that Paul broke off
from Kirpal when he rejected the TTF in 1963. David bought this hook,
line, and sinker.
Yes, it is easy enough to see why they would imagine that only Kirpal
had the truth and no one had ever taught that before, and that simply
because Paul had been initiated that this must have been where he got
it all. But show one other Radhasoami student - ever in the history of
Radhasoami - who wrote a book equal to Dialogues With the Master
within one year of first starting to study with the Master, or The
Tiger's Fang, within two years.
Show me a single student who even after 10 years of study wrote such a
book. It all made some sense when you were told that Paul had been
studying under Kirpal for over ten years, and that Paul never knew
anything about Soul Travel before meeting Kirpal, but none of this is
true. It's all a big lie.
But yes, it is easy to see how people can so easily believe in lies
when they hear them being said over and over again.
>
> Then poor young innocent eyed long-haired David Lane comes along and
> Darwin denies Paul was even Initiated by Kirpal and re-phrases the
> entire question he was being asked by answering about ECK Initiations
> only and ignoring David's quite clear framing of his question in a
> normal light of what *Initiated by Kirpal Singh* would have and did
> mean in the real world.
As I said in my book, Darwin's response is what triggered this for
David. But David misunderstood what Darwin was saying and jumped to
all kinds of conclusions.
Believe it or not, the burden of responsibility belongs to David here.
He was the one making the claims. He was the one who was saying he had
done the research and that his accusations were based on facts.
Darwin may have made a poor response that made things worse, but David
failed as a journalist by not verifying his facts, and not digging
until he found the truth. David's crime here is much worse, especially
when you see that he was intentionally trying to get Eckists to become
disillusioned with their beliefs.
> What else ARE these people supposed to "imagine" what happened here?
> It is not like it was the first time such a thing had happened in the
> world of spiritual teachers and groups. David didn't create this
> situation at all. His opinions may have confused others later, but he
> didn't create the events and the initial confusions himself. That
> responsibility, or cause, lays elsewhere. Isn't that abundantly clear
> now? It is what it is. Right? :-)
I'll be generous and say it is 5% right. The rest is wrong. I think
most people would just say that was wrong, but you've being so
generous to David that I'll be generous as well and spot you 5%.
But it all sound like a story I've heard before, so many times.
Let's see, where did it come from? :-)
>
> > I remember Sawan Singh's name being mentioned a number of
> > times in very positive ways in the early days, but only occasional
> > references to Kirpal because Paul had once studied with him. Also,
> > Paul does actually mention Sawan Singh in one of his talks from 1966,
> > and indicates the line of mastership ended with him, meaning that he
> > thought highly of Sawan Singh.
>
> OK so this notion of mine that Sawan Singh's line ended with him may
> have been this mention by Paul being repeated on a.r.e. etc.
>
> But was there any mention that you can recall that Sawan himself said
> the line would be picked up by another in America? I have a strong
> feeling this is what I heard, but admit i could just have Kirpal mixed
> up with him.
No, Sawan Singh never said such a thing that I've ever heard.
You are probably mixing it up with Kirpal.
Sant Das Maheshwari, from Soamibagh, did say that the next Sant Sat
Guru would not have a beard and would wear a suit and would appear in
the mid-1960's. But you probably never heard that one.
> Since I joined I have never ever heard of anyone mentioning Sawan
> Singh except here that Julian Johnson's [PotM] master was Sawan, and
> where Eckists repeatedly denied Sawan Singh could be Sudar Singh.
>
> Apparently Patti may have a different opinion. Gosh, why aren't I
> surprised by this? <vbg>
I never heard anyone in the early days say that they thought Sudar
Singh was Kirpal Singh. Probably the main reason is because Kirpal was
still alive, and everyone was clear that Sudar Singh had died long
before Paul started Eckankar. Sawan Singh, however was often mentioned
and I heard many old timers tell me they wondered if he was Sudar
Singh. In fact, I remember a number of them who said Sawan Singh,
forgetting that they meant to say Sudar Singh. The same with Lai Tsi
being confused with Lao Tsu.
Ah, the good old days....
This was not just Patti. In fact, I think she picked it up from
others.
>
> Personally, I think Sudar Singh, as in the name, is used to describe a
> number of quite different people that goes beyond mere name redactions
> by Paul that we know about. Yet at the same time it is also cover name
> for one key character who actually is the core and essential Sudar
> Singh, a true "eck" master, who guided Paul until he was 'handed over
> to' or became aware of this other character named Rebazar Tarzs.
>
> Just one example, is that I have it on good authority, ie my own, that
> Huzrat Inayat Khan, a Sufi teacher who arrived in the United States in
> 1910 later to establish and live in an ashram built for him on the
> west bank of the Seine in Paris France in the 1920's is, in fact, THE
> Paris *version* of Sudar Singh. Of course I could be totally wrong
> too. The again, ....... <G>
Did you know that Hazrat Inayat Khan married an American woman? And
that her family came from Kentucky, so they had a very good reason for
being in Kentucky?
I've wondered about Hazrat as well, and others have wondered the same
thing. He would certainly fit the bill, in terms of his spiritual
attainment and his teaching.
> > But I'll ask Patti again to see what she remembers.
>
> > Doug.
>
> PS
> Anyway, just so we don't entirely lose track of the original intent of
> the thread ...... in a quote by Kirpal Singh it included this :::
>
> *** Guru Nanak was asked: Who is your Guru (Master)? He replied:
> Shabd
> (Naam, the light and sound principle) is my Guru. ****
>
> Paul T in his letter dated 11th July 1957 states in part this :
>
> **** I believe that God is the Master - no one else *****
I have another translation of that quote from Guru Nanak and it is
quite different.
Guru Nanak was asked who his teacher was.
But it is late and this email is too long, so I'll have to save that
for another time.
That's a Cliff Hanger, by the way...
Kabir is considered the founder of Sant Mat by many in Radhasoami.
Guru Nanak was see as a Sant Mat teacher by most in Radhasoami.
Rumi and Shams are also mentioned as early teachers of Sant Mat before
Kabir.
However, they don't mention Milarepa or Pythagoras or Apolonius or
Epictetus....
>
> Sufism to me appears like a Muslim version of the Bhakti tradition in
> Hinduism. In Eckankar we even have a Bhakti Marg but ask any good HI
> at the ECK centre and I bet 90% would say oh no, that has nothing to
> do with Bhakti in Indian religions, oh no, these are just funny words
> that Paul coined or changed the meaning of, these are all ECK terms,
> not Hindu at all. When actually, ................ well opinions
> abound, as does ways of expressing them, I guess.
Sufism is far too complex and has far too many variations to simplify.
There is almost every kind of mystical order under the umbrella of
Sufism.
Sufi students would often be sent from one Sufi teacher to another, so
they could get a rounded training, and because each student had
different needs.
Some could easily have fit into the Bhakti Marg, some in the Giani
Marg, some in the Arahata Marg, etc. Each branch of Sufism and each
Sufi teacher was quite different.
But overall, I would say Sufism was far more different from Hinduism
or Sant Mat or Radhasoami, than it was similar.
>
> Gosh yes, what on earth is there to argue about here? What has David
> done that is so bad or wrong. Seems to me he is far more right than he
> is wrong about things that matter? What is there to be afraid of?
> Nothing! ;-)
I agree there is nothing to be afraid of.
As for what David did, I'll put it this way: If I had come out and
openly critcized and attacked a person's reputation and then found out
I was even partially wrong, never mind so far off from the truth as he
was, I would have felt horrible and would openly have apologized and
made a public statement to correct my mistake.
And if I had caused some people to leave their faith on what turned
out, even partially, to be inaccurate information or misleading, I
would have been humbled and would also have publicy done what I could
to make up for such an aggregious error.
But I still have a lot of respect for David, since he has always
spoken honestly about what he knew, even if it made him look bad, and
he has encourage open dialogue and was willing to respond to lots of
questions for many years, which helped us understand better what he
had based his accusations on, and helped us get to a better
understanding. He also has a wealth of information about Radhasoami.
If everyone does what they believe is the right thing, how can we ask
any more than that? I think David always has.
Doug.
>
> Cheers Sean
Etznab
>
> read more »
"So, the pattern of name replacement is that
suddenly starting in mid-1966, Paul felt the
need to distance himself from Kirpal and never
mentions his name again. He still reuses the
articles he had written before, as he so often
reused his writings, but changed them to drop
Kirpal's name. This is where he replaced the
names with the Eck Master's names."
I think you've lost it Doug.
Name replacements? Is that what it's called?
Dropping peoples names is not the same as
changing them to someone else? IS IT? Are
you suggesting to me (TO ANYBODY) that
"dropping names" is the SAME AS changing
them to something else? It doesn't look the
same to me.
*****************************************************
Later on in your response you mentioned what
appears to be an opinion about Rebazar Tarzs.
In fact I notice you mentioned that name quite
a lot in your response.
"I wouldn't say this is strong enough to say we
should expect RT's name in TTF, but it seems
to me that way over-reaching to say it is not
likely."
Let me clarify something as I understand it &
you (or anybody else) can correct if it's wrong.
The year was 1963 when Paul Twitchell "sent"
a copy of TTF manuscript to Kirpal Singh but,
in this response of your's, Do you now believe
that RT's name appears in 1963? Not in 1964
at the earliest? This is something new I see.
Is this something based on fact, or something
you believe, suspect, or want to believe?
It was a very long response you wrote and so
I will probably have to read and respond to it
in parts. However, what I will do is move from
beginning to end noting what to me looks the
most important to clarify.
You wrote:
"I agree that the question of when RT and SS
actually entered into Paul's life, and if these
were his most important teachers, then why
do we not see their names mentioned before
1963 - these are good questions. But I don't
see anything damning here. It is more just
interesting to help us understand Paul better.
The future of Eckankar doesn't hang in the
balance. But it does help give us insights into
the way Paul saw these things."
Again, I have to ask. Were the names RT &
SS mentioned in 1963? Or before 1963? Is
there some public article written by Paul T.
or some fact you discovered that proves a
pre-1964 appearance of Rebazar Tarzs &
Sudar Singh? I'm not saying you believe it,
but the year 1963 and SS / RT does appear
within the frame of your response so far as
I've read it. I think it is important for me to
clarify if you are, or are not, suggesting a
proven case for SS & RT (the names) and
that they existed in 1963 & before. Is this
based on fact? What "source manuscripts",
public articles (whatever) have the names
in 1963, or before? See what I'm bringing
to your attention now?
I probably won't resond to the rest of your
post without clarifying this first part first. I
also have to find time to read the rest of
this thread. Maybe some clarification will
turn up there.
Etznab
Etznab
OK. I read the whole thing (and my head is still attached).
I just want to comment on one other comments by Doug -
for the sake of research - and then offer a personal query
about a possible piece of puzzle I want to see if it fits. It
comes below the margin in this (my) two-part response,
and I want to clarify that I'm just beginning to factor in this
shight possibility (query in 2nd part below margin) & see
if it factually fits. OK and one other small query about RT
after that.
The first comment I want to respond to said:
"In fact, I think Paul goes out of his way to talk about the
similarities with Eckankar as a way of keeping a friendly
relationship with Kirpal. That's why he would write The Far
Country with many sentences being similar to The Path of
the Masters. Yet, from everything I've heard, The Far Country
mentions Rebazar Tarzs from its first draft. And when he
finishes writing TFC, he starts mentioning RT in his articles.
Doug,
Many sentences being similar to The Path of the Masters
Paul wrote? Or Rebazar Tarzs spoke?
You want to talk about Rebazar Tarzs, Doug? That's good.
So do I.
"And when he finishes writing TFC, he starts mentioning RT
in his articles."
OK. I think I see the reference to 1963 coming in here. That
was the time 1963-1964 when Paul Twitchell wrote TFC and
TFC (the versions I've seen) mention Rebazar Tarzs. Except
TFC was published years later. Maybe you have seen Paul's
source manuscript for The Far Country? Where it had RT's
name mentioned in it? Was it 1963, or 1964?
***************************************************************
Another comment from Doug:
"I think we should be discussing why Paul sent the TTF
manuscript to Kirpal. Why?"
"What if he sent it so that Kirpal could see what Paul
was going to be teaching? What if he told Kirpal about
his intentions?
Etznab responds:
What if Paul Twitchell wanted to keep Kirpal Singh happy?
Suppose I broke away from Harold Klemp and started my
own similar path with ME AS THE MASTER. Would it be
prudent for me to give credit to Harold Klemp? Would not
having Harold Klemp - or Eckankar - as my friend and not
my enemy be the sensible thing to do?
I know this is conjecture, but I've been following things I
see are givens (facts) for a long time and this one query
has come to my attention. To ask the question whether
Paul mentions Kirpal Sigh (in certain places) in order to
keep him as a friend? (For various reasons.)
And when does the name dropping & replacements go
into high gear? In 1966 AFTER Paul (reportedly) realizes
that staying in Kirpal Singh's good graces is no longer
possible?
It's just something I'm musing over and don't know the
particulars for sure. I've just started considering these
things as possible facts. I said considering.
As for Rebazar Tarzs and what, who, when, where and
the time his name first appeared according to facts and
not myths I'm not prepared to state for sure.
Just two things I saw on my timeline that look curious
to me.
(1)
Paul Mentions Sar Bachan - July 8th, 1963 letter LTG 2
(2)
"It is an interesting coincidence that one year before Paul
formally began Eckankar (1964), the first English translation
of Sar Bachan was published in Beas, India with translation
help from Dr. Julian Johnson. This work, which describes
itself as an abstract of the teachings of Soami Ji Maharaj,
the founder of the Radha Soami system of Surat Shabda
Yoga, contained the outlines of the tradition which Paul
used to create Eckankar. Paul would have depended on
such English sources because it was apparent that he did
not speak or read Hindi. [....]"
http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/twitchell01.html
I was thinking about what are the chances Rebazar Tarzu
appears someplace in Sar Bachan? Just a small curiosity
I want to explore further.
Etznab
Kinpa
> On Feb 22, 4:09 am, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Just a quick comment Etznab, as I do not want to, and will not be
> getting into this discussion here, it's just not worth it.
>
>
>
> > Another comment from Doug:
>
> > "I think we should be discussing why Paul sent the TTF
> > manuscript to Kirpal. Why?"
>
> > "What if he sent it so that Kirpal could see what Paul
> > was going to be teaching? What if he told Kirpal about
> > his intentions?
>
> > Etznab responds:
>
> > What if Paul Twitchell wanted to keep Kirpal Singh happy?
>
>
> -- What if ?????
>
> Gee, how about the most obvious?
>
> Paul sent Kirpal the manuscript because Kirpal asked him to send him a
> copy, as he'd like it read it. So Paul then sent him a copy --- [ not
> realizing what he was ACTUALLY doing at the time .. and Paul ended up
> paying for it later.]
>
> Is this so hard a concept to consider? :)
>
> How about Why ? What if ? .. and the answer is 42 -- the answer for
> everything!
>
> oh, imho. :)
ahhhhh....42....yup... :o)>>>>
Kinpa
> > > How about Why ? What if ? .. and the answer is 42 -- the answer for
> > > everything!
>
> > > oh, imho. :)
>
> > ahhhhh....42....yup... :o)>>>>
>
> one! :)
>
> And I found Etznab's timeline website years before he started posting
> to a.r.e. - my first instincts about his website and the owner, were
> also accurate. I don;t care what other people imagine. cheers
> sean :o)>>>>
i thought the beard looked good, so i figured id try one on to see
what i think!~!
Doug
>
> Elder John Leland -- full book online.http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bMAiAAAAMAAJ&dq=John+Leland&print...
Yes, it could be.
I don't see that he was a doctor, but he was certainly a spiritual man
and a spiritual leader of his time.
Doug.
On Feb 16, 8:49 am, Santim Vah <santim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 1:50 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:08 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 6:50 pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 8:49 pm, Santim Vah <santim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 11:01 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 12:36 am, Santim Vah <santim...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:28 pm, Santim Vah <santim...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2:15 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Then one has to ask the question why Paul Twitchell
> > > > > > > > > would take his wife to be - Gail - to be initiated during
> > > > > > > > > Kirpal Sing's 1963 world tour.
>
> > > > > > > > > From the 1957 letter:
>
> > > > > > > > > "I have undergone a complete change within the last
> > > > > > > > > few days and the climax came tonight around midnight..."
> > > > > > > > > "I have come to a conclusion that I am no longer lost.
> > > > > > > > > I do not believe that Master Singh has the correct teach-
> > > > > > > > > ing; nor that Scientology can give the spiritual path of
> > > > > > > > > God."
>
> > > > > > > > > This is another reason, I think, why it would be most
> > > > > > > > > important to locate that original manuscript of T.T.F.
> > > > > > > > > Paul sent to Kirpal Singh in 1963 and that (according
> > > > > > > > > to him) Kirpal Singh later returned to Paul Twitchell.
>
> > > > > > > > Why do you assume the "manuscript" was sent to or handed to Kirpal in
> > > > > > > > person in 1963? Is there an account of this, I can't remember.
>
> > > > > > > > Did David ever get a note of a date for that? Plus I am very inclined
> > > > > > > > to see things Doug's way, in that from Kirpal's own words that have
> > > > > > > > been told, Paul may well have sent Kirpal the DWTM, before he sent him
> > > > > > > > TTF.
>
> > > > > > > > If Kirpal got a copy of TTF, has he ever admitted to actually reading
> > > > > > > > it? I think from other things I have rad that by the time Paul could
> > > > > > > > have sent Kirpal a copy of the TTF .. it would have been at least
> > > > > > > > 1958. I can think of no reason for Paul not to send it asap.
>
> > > > > > > > I see any problems at all about Paul's comments in that letter, and
> > > > > > > > either staying friendly with Kirpal, and his satsangis, or even
> > > > > > > > staying as a chela himself for a time ... as reported by Harold ..
> > > > > > > > Paul is known to have changed his mind almost 180 degrees, and back
> > > > > > > > again. I know i have ! <vbg>
>
> > > > > > > > This to me is all quite normal, in the real world. We all change our
> > > > > > > > minds and opinions -- some more than others sure, and we all have
> > > > > > > > shifts away from an idea for a years and then for personal reasons and
> > > > > > > > things that occur come back to it again and it works better this time
> > > > > > > > around. .. this is all normal. Paul appears quite normal, for Paul,
> > > > > > > > imho.
>
> > > > > > > > And even if by the time 1963 came along , that Paul had truly moved
> > > > > > > > past a belief in Kirpal as a true master, this doesn't preclude him
> > > > > > > > taking Gail along in late 1963 for the "experience" itself, and to see
> > > > > > > > how others were in that group.
>
> > > > > > > > Reading between the lines of the LTG series, I get a sense that Paul
> > > > > > > > took Gail out to such events meetings etc whenever possible. I think
> > > > > > > > it's called an excuse for a "date" even -- who knows exactly, besides
> > > > > > > > Gail herself? :)
>
> > > > > > > > cheers sean
>
> > > > > > > Maybe it was a complete misunderstanding and a communication
> > > > > > > breakdown?
>
> > > > > > > Maybe Paul never ever sent Kirpal TTF, but sent him the DWTM by
> > > > > > > mistake or soemthing ... or he sent him both, but the TTF never
> > > > > > > arrived .
>
> > > > > > > Kirpal gets confused about letters talking about a manuscript, and it
> > > > > > > all gets too much from the brash unrelenting letter writer from
> > > > > > > Kentucky ... you know, just got sick of Paul? It's possible, given
> > > > > > > Kirpal said he didn;t quite accept the info Paul was sending to him
> > > > > > > anyway.
>
> > > > > > > We need to view this, and frame this in a way that actually makes
> > > > > > > SENSE TO KIRPAL'S POSITION, and also not assume the "story" we have
> > > > > > > been told is actually as accurate as it sounds .. things DO get
> > > > > > > confused between friends and falling outs occur by pure chance and
> > > > > > > mistakes, and often assumptions more than anything. Wrong assumptions
> > > > > > > that is!
>
> > > > > > > Just because paul T thought that X was the case, doesn't mean it was.
> > > > > > > to continually just assume [ and I this is not a personal comment to
> > > > > > > etznab ] he was 100% right about this TTF incident is going to far,
> > > > > > > imho. A little wiggle room should be left, and Kirpal given the
> > > > > > > benefit of the doubt at least.
>
> > > > > > Sean,
>
> > > > > > This is just a guess,
>
> > > > > we are all that boat - usually :)
>
> > > > > > but I think that it is possible that what Kirpal
> > > > > > read was the letters that Paul sent to him starting in 1955, where he
> > > > > > describes his inner experiences with The Master's Form, as Kirpal
> > > > > > called it.
>
> > > > > > Kirpal read these, and some of these may have ended up in Dialogues
> > > > > > With The Master.
>
> > > > > > This is where Kirpal got the idea that The Tiger's Fang was about
> > > > > > inner experiences that happened through dreams, which was one of the
> > > > > > main things that he criticized Paul over.
>
> > > > > > Go back to Dialogues With The Master and read the way Paul describes
> > > > > > his inner experiences. I found it interesting that the first few did
> > > > > > indeed describe starting from a dream. But then after that, they
> > > > > > became waking experiences.
>
> > > > > Yes, I know what you refer to.
>
> > > > > > So, imagine Kirpal reading some of these letters and after a few come
> > > > > > with dream experience, and Kirpal firmly believed that dreams were not
> > > > > > real experiences and should not be counted as inner experience, he
> > > > > > stops reading anything else Paul wrote.
>
> > > > > Yes, which is pretty much what I was saying is very possible. and from
> > > > > Kirpal's pov, a sensible thing to do.
>
> > > > > AND "friends" and even masters don't automatically go out of their way
> > > > > to mention every thing they disagree with. Meaning, Paul may well have
> > > > > been in the dark for over 10 years before he *finally* realised that
> > > > > Kirpal, via his US leaders was being very critical of Paul's *beliefs*
> > > > > and *practices*.
>
> > > > > So, switching to Paul's "frame" now, and where sees himself, this
> > > > > *could have * come as a complete *shocker* to Paul, and thus issues
> > > > > such as feelings of betrayal etc could arise. As in Paul *could* have
> > > > > thought to himself :: "Gee why didn't Kirpal ever mention this to
> > > > > me .. gee he had my postal address for 10 years ???
>
> > > > > thought, Paul *could* have also not really cared much at all about the
> > > > > whole thing, or Kirpal's opinions anymore. -- but all this is too a
> > > > > *guess* at possibilities.
>
> > > > > > Or maybe the idea of
> > > > > > everything Paul experienced was a dream experience became stuck in
> > > > > > Kirpal's mind.
>
> > > > > VERY possible .. and Paul T in 1955 onwards was but ONE Chela of many.
> > > > > He wasn't the later well known Mahanta the LEM as he was in 1971.
>
> > > > > From Kirpal's pov .... Paul is a completely different person than any
> > > > > Eckist [incl harold] who is doing research about Paul would see Paul
> > > > > as.
>
> > > > > > Then in 1963 (Kirpal quoted the year) Paul sends him a copy of TTF.
> > > > > > And Kirpal comments to his closest followers that Paul's experiences
> > > > > > weren't genuine, because they were dream experiences.
>
> > > > > Yes ..
>
> > > > > > But TTF doesn't
> > > > > > describe dream experiences at all. So, why would he say that in 1963
> > > > > > after receiving TTF? Probably because he had formed that opinion in
> > > > > > 1955.
>
> > > > > small note of caution here fwiw :
> > > > > I have learnt to be very cautious around your "probably because"
> > > > > comments Doug. There's a pattern there .. where probably because" has
> > > > > sometimes morphed a year or more later into "well, what we know is" -
> > > > > when i reality we still don't. :)
>
> > > > > So, YES, he *could have formed* that opinion as far back as 1955 - but
> > > > > it may still be utterly irrelevant to the issues of dreams in 1955.
>
> > > > > Why? because Kirpal may well as come to this view in 1957, OR 1959, OR
> > > > > even in 1963 when Kirpal SAW Paul in the flesh when taking Gail along
> > > > > to her Ruhani Satsang Initiation with Kirpal.
>
> > > > > Paul may equally have "handed him TTF in the flesh in 1963" and said
> > > > > things about it .. or Kirpal may well have questioned him about it
> > > > > too. We do NOT really know, do we?
>
> > > > > > The other reason I suggested this connection was because Kirpal
> > > > > > describes TTF as a record of Paul's dialogues with the Master's Form,
> > > > > > which is not what TTF was, but it is what Dialogues With The Master
> > > > > > was.
>
> > > > > It sits quite well with me that Kirpal mis-spoke, and was actually
> > > > > referring to DWTM, or some other compiled manuscript or group of
> > > > > artciles/letters that Paul may have sent him.
>
> > > > > Most of these ideas go back what was the initial piece of info that
> > > > > was spoken about, and how was that framed originally. In this case re
> > > > > TTF manuscript there is not enough info for me to know for sure what
> > > > > *Kirpal* was about.
>
> > > > > 99% of the time over the last decade plus .. I have seen short quotes
> > > > > from Kirpal followed by long explanations from all sides of the issue.
> > > > > As mentioned previously, I have tried now to just dump all these prior
> > > > > ideas from my memory banks, and have started from scratch to look at
> > > > > the history as a "clean slate" with "fresh eyes" again.
>
> > > > > I think this approach is working well thus far.
>
> > > > > > So, for these two reason, I think there is some good reason to think
> > > > > > that Kirpal may not have even read TTF.
>
> > > > > Without those two reasons there is still good reason to think that as
> > > > > being quite possible, in fact quite probable. How many people believe
> > > > > that Harold read all the info that Ford sent him, or the Open letters,
> > > > > or the book Confessions? There is an operative MO under such
> > > > > circumstances imho. :)
>
> > > > > However, apparently there is a detailed talk by Kirpal to Satsangis
> > > > > about the TTF book and Paul's new teaching. I have heard of this
> > > > > before, or perhaps seen short quotes from it, but can't recall if the
> > > > > full transcript has ever been shared here, or if you have it
> > > > > yourself.
>
> > > > > OK, so we are going for the ORIGINAL Copy ... it;s been ordered and
> > > > > awaiting a notice that they have shipped it. let's see what Kirpal
> > > > > says in his own words?
>
> > > > > > Oh, one other connection: In an article that Paul wrote around this
> > > > > > time, he said that he had written about dialogues with masters he had
> > > > > > inwardly and put these into a book. So, if Kirpal read this, then he
> > > > > > could have assumed this is what TTF was, not realizing that Paul was
> > > > > > describing a different book completely. And from what I've heard of
> > > > > > Kirpal, he would have heard about everything Paul wrote in those early
> > > > > > days, since he did keep track of his followers and he and Paul were
> > > > > > still writing to each other.
>
> > > > > This does indeed make sense to me .. and may well be what has
> > > > > happened. I just don't know for sure myself, as yet.
>
> > > > > > The question about Paul taking Gail to see Kirpal and getting the
> > > > > > initiation, this sounds incredibly similar to what Paul did with his
> > > > > > first wife, Camille. He took her to a whole series of churches and
> > > > > > teachers, to bring her up to speed with what he had been studying. We
> > > > > > saw this in the letters she wrote back to Paul while he was in the
> > > > > > Navy.
>
> > > > > I don't understand the *question* aspects here?
>
> > > > > I have no problem with accepting David Lane as credible on face value
> > > > > that he personally saw and took notes of Gail's Initiation records in
> > > > > India in 1988 - until proven beyond a doubt otherwise.http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsma3.html
>
> > > > > which btw includes this : "In fact, Twitchell even goes so far as to
> > > > > ask Kirpal Singh to publish his book The Tiger's Fang in 1966, well
> > > > > over a year after he founded Eckankar."
>
> > > > > ??? It may be no surprise that I have never read all of David's
> > > > > articles, books etc. so seeing things like 1966 asking TO Publish TTF,
> > > > > and NOT asking him to return it, is NEW ONE ON ME ! :)
>
> > > > > eg Initiation by Kirpal has Gail herself EVER denied this to you
> > > > > personally?
> > > > > But, have you ever asked her personally?, which is a more important
> > > > > point imho. Surely she would know.
>
> > > > > In LTG 3 it states quite clearly in early 1964 [ sorry after an hour
> > > > > still can't find the specific quote] - "during your Initiation with
> > > > > Sudar Singh last year" [sic]
>
> > > > > BUT all coments tell us that Sudar Singh died before 1950, so how
> > > > > could he be intitiating gail, even in the *inner* ?? fact is it is
> > > > > obvious that a change had been made here and was actually referring to
> > > > > Kirpal Singh, in 1963, and that reading this any other way makes NO
> > > > > sense.
>
> > > > > Unless Gail has denied any knowledge of Kirpal Singh, then why can't
> > > > > we just move on and get over this issue and accept it as true and
> > > > > accurate? Everyone already knows Sudar was used as a redaction tool
> > > > > for many other people, and not just Kirpal Singh.
>
> > > > > Over a dozen times Sudar Singh is mentioned in LTG III .. , sometimes
> > > > > as ECK Master Sudar Singh -- and in every case it looks to me that it
> > > > > is actually referring to Kirpal Singh personally, and this is CLEARLY
> > > > > so.
>
> > > > > It's a great book, imho, and it would still be a great book if the
> > > > > names were changed back to the original.
>
> > > > > > These are all of course just guesses.
>
> > > > > > Doug.
>
> > > > > RE:
> > > > > These are all of course just guesses.
>
> > > > > SEAN:
>
> > > > > Yes, I accept that. i too am full of guesses [at times], due to the
> > > > > lack of confirming data and all the gaps in our knowledge. And Harold
> > > > > Klemp is full of guesses and *I don't knows* as well.
>
> > > > > Yet, we need to have these guesses, these theories of what *may have
> > > > > been* because it helps to open up directions for research -- iow where
> > > > > to look and what to look for.
>
> > > > > But if we don't find any *confirming info* that stacks up with the
> > > > > THEORY, then the theory and all the guesses isn't worth much at all.
> > > > > It becomes nothing more than mouthing one's beliefs.
>
> > > > > My personal issue is about how much these theories have been overtaken
> > > > > and morphed into accepted evidence, or valid credible reasons as why
> > > > > Paul did x or y .
>
> > > > > The FALSE claim that "documented evidence PROVES that only 0.07% of
> > > > > Paul's writings on Eckankar were Plagiarised" is a classic example of
> > > > > this.
>
> > > > > NOT doing any real work to compare things properly adds up to evidence
> > > > > in the pseudo world of Eck Truth in the minds of some. I think this is
> > > > > really sad, and incredibly un-professional of Eckankar the Org who is
> > > > > the only entity that IS responsible. No one here is, NO ONE!
>
> > > > > For far too long now, imho, from Harold down, pro or anti-Eckankar,
> > > > > so much of this history about Paul is just not credible or reliable,
> > > > > as so much is full of *good guesses* that fit the *person* we think we
> > > > > know - when we really don't.
>
> > > > > And so often these *good guesses* are not presented as guesses, nor
> > > > > as Theories that REQUIRE true research to find the evidence to back up
> > > > > the Guesses, but as simple *facts*.
>
> > > > > OR when people's internalised *frames* are applied then it looks to me
> > > > > that all too often MOST people, yes I said MOST People block out or
> > > > > FILTER the words that say it is just a guess or a good theory, and
> > > > > read it as GOSPEL FACT .. especially when it comes from a person seen
> > > > > to be a proven credible & reliable person; eg Harold or Yourself, as
> > > > > well as David and Ford in another camp.
>
> > > > > That Eckankar itself has done nothing in this regard, bar Harold
> > > > > reading over some of Paul's private files, to me is unbelievable, and
> > > > > I simply cannot comprehend it.
>
> > > > > Why is so hard to go out and nail down a few home truths and accurate
> > > > > details about Paul's life --- WHEN these details, and Paul's teachers,
> > > > > and Paul's plagiarising MO are behind 99% of the negative publicity
> > > > > that Eckankar has had since 1977?
>
> > > > > And yet from HQ? Nothing ... but a few Lawyer letters to those who
> > > > > seek real facts, and honest explanations backed up with evidence of
> > > > > what is.
>
> > > > > Why is David Lane now doing a series on the Plagiarism of the Far
> > > > > Country in 2010, and yet we are yet top get ONE sentence with the
> > > > > words "plagiarised" and "TFC" in it about Paul in any book, in any
> > > > > talk, in any webpage by Eckankar?
>
> > > > > [ all these are just rhetorical questions, I don't need an answer or
> > > > > opinion about ]
>
> > > > > But I wonder [ rarely] about the NEW Chelas who joined just last week
> > > > > [ any week] who excitedly do an online search about Eckankar or Paul,
> > > > > and come up with all this "crappolla" both pro and con everywhere
> > > > > online.
>
> > > > > And not ONE straight on-the-level response or clarification or
> > > > > official commentary by Eckankar that such a search will raise almost
> > > > > immediately.
>
> > > > > I guess they better go buy TWT .... something that was done without
> > > > > access to the files stored away in MN secret archive, and not spoken
> > > > > about since 1985 in any significant way. <smile>
>
> > > > > Or several years on a.r.e. arguing with anon posters too damn scared
> > > > > and paranoid to use their real name in any form, or others non-stop
> > > > > harassing people who ask simple questions not being answered anywhere
> > > > > else. This is supposed to be good PR for Eckankar and shows the world
> > > > > how sound it is , and how important things can be discovered on the
> > > > > inner as the premier source for everything?
>
> > > > > Maybe Eckankar imagines it is like China and there's an auto filter
> > > > > installed into Google Search strings about Paul Twitchell and
> > > > > Eckankar. That isn't the case however, and because that isn't the case
> > > > > Eckankar continues, in the eyes of many for no good purpose, appear
> > > > > like a con-job, a cover up full of deceptions and half-truths, and a
> > > > > second rate operation unable to deal with the reality of life on
> > > > > planet earth circa 2010.
>
> > > > > And Eckankar only looks deceptive for the reason that it is in fact
> > > > > acting deceptively, is NOT open and honest and forthright, and is not
> > > > > in fact being honest or Truthful at all.
>
> > > > > But none of that is my responsibility, and I will not take it on
> > > > > either. But it is not hard to feel and understand how and why others
> > > > > feel about it the way that they do, in and out of Eckankar.
>
> > > > > David Lane and his work is far from finished imho. Looks to me like
> > > > > Eckankar has yet to even begin facing up to it's responsibilities to
> > > > > those it seeks to recruit as new members, and hold longer than a few
> > > > > years at best.
>
> > > > > So I simply ........ <shrug> and <sigh> and :)
>
> > > > > Thanks Sean
>
> > > > Sean,
>
> > > > First, I agree with you that it is hard to say when Kirpal formed his
> > > > opinion that Paul's teaching was based on dream techniques, which was
> > > > the main reason stated that he didn't think Paul's teaching was valid.
> > > > He could have formed that opinion anywhere along the way. And as you
> > > > point out, this doesn't change anything when he formed that opinion.
>
> > > > I also agree that we keep in mind what are guesses and not let them
> > > > turn into proven facts, which they aren't.
>
> > > > You refer to a detailed talk of Kirpal with his followers about Paul
> > > > and TTF. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. There was
> > > > Kirpal's quotes from his talks published later as Heart to Heart
> > > > Talks. The quotes in my book that we've seen many times are the extent
> > > > of what he specifically said about TTF. There was also a long piece
> > > > written by Russell Perkins that I included on page 136 of my book. Is
> > > > that what you were referring to?
>
> > > > I don't know of any other detailed comments about Kirpal and what he
> > > > said about the TTF or Paul.
>
> > > > I also accept David's comment that he saw the initiation papers for
> > > > Gail and that she was probably initiated. That wasn't the "question" I
> > > > was referring to. Etznab had asked the question of why would Paul do
> > > > this if he had long before left Kirpal? It doesn't seem strange at all
> > > > to me that Paul would bring Gail to meet him and encourage her to take
> > > > the initiation. As I said, Paul did the same thing with his first
> > > > wife, and it didn't in any way mean he was committed to the teachings
> > > > he took her to.
>
> > > > I agree that it is possible Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript of TTF
> > > > when he met him in 1963, although Harold said that he sent it to him.
> > > > So, it could have been after their meeting as well.
>
> > > > I think you are right that the reference in LTG III about Gail getting
> > > > her initiation the year before is mostly likely referring to Kirpal. I
> > > > haven't had enough time with Gail to ask her this. We've only talked
> > > > briefly. But Patti Simpson Rivinus told me that when she was
> > > > publishing the Letters to Gail in The ECK World News, which was the
> > > > first place they were seen before being published in book form, she
> > > > said that there were a number of places where Kirpal Singh's name or
> > > > Sawan Singh's name was changed to Sudar Singh. She said that she
> > > > didn't remember seeing any cases of Rebazar Tarzs' name being changed,
> > > > however. But that was a long time ago.
>
> > > > By the way, I don't know if any of the Letters to Gail were published
> > > > while Paul was alive, so I'm not sure he made any of those edits.
> > > > Patti might have or Gail.
>
> > > > As for Eckankar not addressing these issues and not coming out with
> > > > more real facts to help clarify the picture - well, that's of course
> > > > exactly why I published my book, to help fill that void.
>
> > > > I'm sure everyone always has good reasons for the positions they take
> > > > on how open they will be. Corporations and organizations rarely were
> > > > open in the past. It was considered a risk to share information unless
> > > > is was necessary. But the Internet has changed the world, and more
> > > > openness is now the much wiser course. This doesn't mean sharing
> > > > everything, but that openness is appreciated by people, because it
> > > > helps everyone get at the truth.
>
> > > > Harold told me that one day the files would be made open to
> > > > researchers who wanted to go in and study them.
>
> > > > Doug.
>
> > > "It doesn't seem strange at all to me that Paul would bring Gail
> > > to meet him and encourage her to take the initiation. As I said,
> > > Paul did the same thing with his first wife, and it didn't in any
> > > way mean he was committed to the teachings he took her to."
>
> > > Doug,
>
> > > I see it a little unusual considering the timing.
>
> > > "According to Paul, he wrote the book [The Far Country] shortly
> > > after meeting Gail, when he moved down to San Francisco, which
> > > would have been in 1963-1964. This is the same year Paul gave
> > > his copy of The Tiger's Fang to Kirpal Singh, and introduced Gail
> > > to Kirpal, which resulted in Gail being initiated by Kirpal. [....]"
>
> > >http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Six.htm
>
> > > Because, according to Paul Twitchell:
>
> > > "[....] 'and it was in the company of Rebazar Tarzs that I returned
> > > to a study of the Far Country. Later, with Gail and her spiritual
> > > guide,Dr. JohnLeland, I came to know Rebazar Tarzs better, and
> > > I began to leave my physical body at night to meet with him at his
> > > mud and brick hut in the Himalayas. It was a series of twelve im-
> > > portant dialogues with Rebazar Tarzs which produced my manu-
> > > script The Far Country.' [....]"
>
> > > [IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger, p. 121]
>
> > > It's curious to me that Paul would encourage Gail to get Initiation
> > > from Kirpal Singh in 1963, or 1964 unless Ruhani Satsang was in
> > > some ways related to Eckankar and the teachings of Rebazar T.
> > > Otherwise, why not have her initiated by Rebazar Tarzs?
>
> > > One reason I could think of is if Rebazar Tarzs wasn't a real live
> > > person capable of acting as a Living Master, whereas Kirpal S.
> > > was. According to the Eckankar stories, it looks like Rebazar
> > > Tarzs was the Living Eck Master in 1963-64. In fact, I don't be-
> > > lieve it was only Paul Twitchell who saw, met, or spoke with
> > > Rebazar Tarzs - according to the record. I believe there is the
> > > mention of Gail meeting him too. It will take me some time to
> > > locate the illustration where this appears.
>
> > > About Paul Twitchell not being committed to the teachings of
> > > Ruhani Satsang or Kirpal Singh in 1963-1964, I think he was.
> > > Considering the amount of material from Julian Johnson's The
> > > Path Of The Masters in The Far Country, The Shariyat or any
> > > other of the Eckankar books written by Paul Twitchell.
>
> > > commit: late 14c., from L. committere "to bring together,"
> > > from com- "together" + mittere "to put, send" [....]
>
> > >http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=commit&searchmode=none
>
> > > BTW. About Gail or Patti making revisions to Letters to Gail
> > > after Paul died - Which one of them put in the words Eckankar
> > > and Rebazar Tarzs in the first Letter to Gail? Or, were they, in
> > > fact, there in the original 1962 letter? See if you can ask them
> > > about this when you get time. It might be a helpful clarification.
>
> > > About the files being open to the public, even classified gov't
> > > materials become public via freedom of information, etc. I do
> > > not see any reason why it can't happen with a company, or
> > > business too. Barring any priest penitent privilege.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy-penitent_privilege
>
> > > Justification of the principle
>
> > > McNicol[3] gives three arguments in favour of the privilege:
>
> > > Freedom of religion
>
> > > The ethical duty of ministers of religion to keep confessions
> > > confidential
>
> > > The practical fact that ministers of religion will inevitably be
> > > ruled by the conscience and defy the courts, even at the
> > > cost of their own liberty.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy-penitent_privilege
>
> > > Under the section Freedom of Religion:
>
> > > Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom
> > > of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest
> > > religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance;
> > > the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom
> > > to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] Freedom of
> > > religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fund-
> > > amental human right.[2] Thomas Jefferson said (1807) "among
> > > the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to
> > > worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His
> > > will; ..."[3]
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
>
> > > You might not agree, but I think the freedom of religion goes
> > > both ways. And that members have the freedom to know the
> > > truth - as it is known by their ministers - regarding the origin
> > > and written history of a member's religion. Especially if, and
> > > when, said history is knowingly changed, edited, revised or
> > > pseudo-fied to the detriment of religious adherents. Also if,
> > > and when, the latter leads to forms of religious persecution -
> > > the cause of which is not known to the persecuted but has
> > > the effect of perpetrating a form of unlawful discrimination &
> > > covert character assassination against citizens affiliated by
> > > membership with said religious organization.
>
> > > Etznab
>
> > > P.S. For the record.
>
> > "[....] 'and it was in the company of Rebazar Tarzs that I returned
> > to a study of the Far Country. Later, with Gail and her spiritual
> > guide,Dr. JohnLeland, I came to know Rebazar Tarzs better, and
> > I began to leave my physical body at night to meet with him at his
> > mud and brick hut in the Himalayas. It was a series of twelve im-
> > portant dialogues with Rebazar Tarzs which produced my manu-
> > script The Far Country.' [....]"
>
> > [IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger, p. 121]
>
> > [....] I believe there is the mention of Gail meeting him too. It
> > will
> > take me some time to locate the illustration where this appears."
>
> > **************************************************************************
>
> > Didn't know I would find a reference so quickly. However, I began
> > the task of comparing The Cosmic Worlds chapter of Dialogues
> > With The Master with Chapter One of The Far Country and found
> > a slightly different quote from the one from In My Soul I Am Free.
>
> > "Later, with Gail, my wife, I came to know Rebazar Tarzs better.
> > He talked several times to us. I began to leave the body at night
> > and meet with him at his mud and brick hut in the Himalayas."
>
> > The Far Country, Chap. One, bottom of 2nd page and continuing
> > on top of 3rd page. Eighth Printing 1983.
>
> > **************************************************************************
>
> > Much will be learned from the comparison of these two chapters
> > I am sure. As in a number of places they appear very identical.
> > Of note, however, is that in DWTM Rebazar Tarzs came to Paul
> > (reportedly). Whereas, in The Far Country, Paul claims to go to
> > Rebazar Tarzs. In the Himalayas.
>
> > If anybody knows more about thatDr. JohnLelandI would like
> > to look him up and learn what he knows about Rebazar Tarzs.
>
> > Etznab
>
> not sure, but culd be ??
>
> Elder John Leland -- full book online.http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bMAiAAAAMAAJ&dq=John+Leland&print...
Doug
> On Feb 16, 3:01 pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > The freedom of information act is purely aimed at government agencies,
> > since those files belong to the country and therefore citizens should
> > have a right to see them. So, it is an ownership issue. But this
> > doesn't give anyone the ability to take away someone else's ownership
> > rights.
>
> "ownership rights"
>
> freedom of info, copyright law, property rights ... ownership
> rights ............ I believe that you have totally ignored a key
> aspect to this situation Doug. I think there is more than the one way
> you have stated this here Doug.
>
> I don't think you have considered the whole ramifications of what they
> are claiming "ownership" of, and therefore "control" over.
>
> In this regard, I would point you back to the spirit of the law
> regarding Copyrights. These are essentially a limitation of those that
> "own" creative works, and not a positive re-inforcement of their
> abiltiy to control the *information* or the *ideas* that might be
> contained within such a creative work, or something as simple as an
> old advertisment in an old newspaper. [ as just one example]
>
> if that was gobbly-gook, sorry this might be clearer.
>
> WKU might well have a legal argument that they have ownership rights
> over the physical items they are in possession of..., be it hand
> written notes, a dairy, manuscripts, books, articles, rough notes,
> family photographs or whatever .. but this does not extend
> automatically to being in a position of having any *right* whatsoever
> about the information contained therein.
>
> Whatever property rights do exist, they do NOT extend out to preclude
> what another person on the planet may chose to do with, or how they
> handle the information contained therein. No rights whatsoever.
>
> If they for example had an original piece of paper which was in fact
> Paul's birth certificate, they ahev no rioght under any law under any
> protection of the US Constitution to keep that item private unless one
> actually walks in their door and asks them if they can see it. No
> right whatsoever.
>
> Unless I simply do not know that one exists, so by all means I would
> want to know if there is such a law that allows them to restrict
> modern access to the information in these things they claim they own.
I agree with you that information is not protected by copyrights.
Which is why, after they gave me permission to read through their
files, I was free to say anything I wanted to about it. They didn't
restrict me in what I wrote or tell me that I couldn't say certain
things. The only thing they controlled was ownership of the files
themselves.
This is not an ownership of information. It is an ownership of
property, which in this case were physical letters and articles.
In other words, no one has a right to go in and seize their property
and take it from them. That's the basic law of ownership. Information
can't be owned, although it can be kept secret. People do have a right
to keep information secret. But once information has been shared,
there is no control over it. But this is because information is not
something concrete that could be owned or controlled.
However, physical letters and documents can be owned and controlled.
So, this has nothing to do with copyrights or freedom of information.
>
> Because there is another aspect where I believe that WKU is
> overstepping it's authority here.
>
> Let's assume they have the exact same material on hand but it is about
> or personal possessions of Abraham Lincoln. What argument could WKU
> propose that would defend their claim they have the right to restrict
> modern access to ANY historian or private citizen who wanted to do
> objective research into the life of this ex-President?
Let's take a real life example: It was not that long ago that it
finally became public after centuries that Isaac Newton had written a
manuscript on his research into alchemy. He wrote it in code, so that
none would find out what he was doing, since it was forbidden by the
scientists of his days. This manuscript has been kept secret and
hidden until recently.
The owners of the manuscript had a perfect right to do with it as they
wished. Know one knew about it, so their rights were never contested.
But even if someone had heard a rumor of the writings, the most they
could ever do was publicly harass them for keeping back something that
everyone should be able to read. But there is no laws that could force
them to share it.
There are wealthy collectors who buy up paintings and works of art by
famous artists and then keep those art treasures in their own personal
viewing rooms that they only share with those they choose. Some don't
share them with anyone, since it appears hoarding is what they really
enjoy. Well, since they own the artwork, they can do that. They can
prevent anyone from entering their homes and taking pictures of the
artwork.
>
> Can anyone suggest one right that Abraham Lincoln lacks, but that the
> current "owner" of materials about Paul Twitchell possesses?
>
> I think that it is pretty clear, that there is a big difference
> between holding in your hands a 1910 paducah newspaper and being able
> to claim that you own it, and therefore can control how that newspaper
> stored and displayed and where.
>
> And claiming that you also have the right over the INFORMATION that is
> within that there newspaper for research, study, and discussion
> purposes. By digitizing the information, or even by transcribing the
> information into new document forms does not in nay way take away from
> ANY of the Rights that may persist in the hands of WKU due to the fact
> that they consider themselves the legal owners of ONE copy of a
> newspaper, or a magazine, or a directory, or a book, or whatever. Even
> if it is a one off diary, they have no rights over that information.
It is not the information that they own, it is only the physical
documents. But the moment they become digitized and put on the
Internet, then they give up almost all the value that those documents
contain.
Imagine we were talking about money. As long as you possess a $100
bill, it is yours to spend and no one else can spend it. If you
convert that into a digital representation in your bank account, it is
still regulated and controlled so that only you can spend it. It still
belongs to you. However, if you suddenly gave anyone in the world
access to that money via the Internet, then it would quickly disappear
and not belong to you anymore. And if everyone could use those digital
representations without any ownership, then the whole idea of money
would collapse. No one would be able to spend it.
>
> From a historical pov, and from a legal pov, I would suggest that the
> US public has all the rights in the world to have open modern library
> access to such information as an automatic Right protected by the
> Constitution itself.
>
> My memory tells me that Paul sent things regularly to the Paducah
> Library, but in another item I read again recently he says that he was
> sending a Copy of, or cuttings of published artciles etc., OF ALL HIS
> WORK to the Western Kentucky University Library at Bowling Green
> Kentucky.
>
> So tell me in 2010, with life of the author plus 70 YEARS .. who is
> the
>
> ---- LEGAL OWNER OF THE RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS COPYRIGHT
> MATERIAL WRITTEN BY PAUL TWITCHELL ----
>
> is there a Will? is there a Contract of Sale of Rights?
There is a clearly written record of ownership. It shows in letters
that Paul himself sent in the articles and his personal letters. He
gave them to the library. This has nothing to do with copyrights.
Remember, that the copies of magazine articles that he sent in are all
they own. If you can find another published copy of those articles,
then you can get that same information from other sources. In fact,
some of these articles were also in the Paducah library, where Paul
also sent some of his published writings. Those files are open for
anyone to view.
>
> > This whole issue came up recently with Carl Jung's diary, which was
> > published for the first time this last year. Called,
>
> This is a bit of a distraction imho, whilst interesting it is
> irrelevant to the WKU situation. This IS an educational and library
> institution, a custodian of knowledge on behalf of the general Public
> of the USA, whether such a College is private or public. It isn't Fox
> Studios in ownership of the rights to make a movie out of a book, nor
> a diary.
>
> Then again, nothing would surprise me.
>
> Can you see where I am coming from here? I have no idea why you would
> be feeling that you need to defend these choices by WKU. [ if you are,
> you may not be. I don't know, but it sure looks like it :-)) ]
>
> cheers sean
I don't feel any need to defend them. I wished they would make it
public. But I can understand their decision and they have every right
to do as they have decided. There is no law that would support seizing
their property so that it can be made public.
I think they will allow just about anyone to visit and see their
collection. They just won't let people make copies (I was allowed to
take copies of 10 photos and publish them under their permission, as
long as I credited WKU). So, it isn't that they are restricting
access. They just aren't letting the collection be digitized and put
on the Internet for free access.
I'm sure they would even let Australians visit.
One day in the future they will probably digitize it all.
Doug.
Doug
> On Feb 16, 3:04 pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> > > I began to leave my physical body at night to meet with him at his
> > > mud and brick hut in the Himalayas. It was a series of twelve im-
> > > portant dialogues with Rebazar Tarzs which produced my manu-
> > > script The Far Country.' [....]"
>
> > > [IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger, p. 121]
>
> > > [....] I believe there is the mention of Gail meeting him too. It
> > > will
> > > take me some time to locate the illustration where this appears."
>
> > > **************************************************************************
>
> > > Didn't know I would find a reference so quickly. However, I began
> > > the task of comparing The Cosmic Worlds chapter of Dialogues
> > > With The Master with Chapter One of The Far Country and found
> > > a slightly different quote from the one from In My Soul I Am Free.
>
> > > "Later, with Gail, my wife, I came to know Rebazar Tarzs better.
> > > He talked several times to us. I began to leave the body at night
> > > and meet with him at his mud and brick hut in the Himalayas."
>
> > > The Far Country, Chap. One, bottom of 2nd page and continuing
> > > on top of 3rd page. Eighth Printing 1983.
>
> > > **************************************************************************
>
> > > Much will be learned from the comparison of these two chapters
> > > I am sure. As in a number of places they appear very identical.
> > > Of note, however, is that in DWTM Rebazar Tarzs came to Paul
> > > (reportedly). Whereas, in The Far Country, Paul claims to go to
> > > Rebazar Tarzs. In the Himalayas.
>
> > > to look him up and learn what he knows about Rebazar Tarzs.
>
> > > Etznab
>
>
> > If anyone runs across any information on Dr. John Leland, I would be
> > interested as well.
>
> > I have searched, but found nothing about him. After reading what Paul
> > has written, I've come to the conclusion that Paul is talking about an
> > inner teacher that Gail had, not an outer teacher.
>
> > If this is true, then it is interesting that he would him together
> > with Rebazar Tarzs in the same references.
>
> > Doug.
>
> may not be the one, but sure is an interesting fellow.
>
> 1790
> "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded
> forever. ... Government should protect every man in thinking and
> speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty
> I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is
> despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest
> to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks,
> Pagans and Christians." John Leland, "A Chronicle of His Time in
> Virginia," The Writings of the Later Elder John Leland, published in
> 1845.http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/quotesscs.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leland_(Baptist)
>
> All quotation taken from Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, Political
> Writing During the Founding Era: 1760-1805, in two volumes. John
> Leland (1754 - 1841) was a Baptist Minister that lived and worked in
> the state of Massachusetts. Leland was committed to separation, and
> helped Madison win the Virginia battles for religious freedom. In
> addition, he helped lead the fight to ratify the Constitution in
> Massachusetts. His writings under the name Jack Nips in THE YANKEE SPY
> was an effort to gain support for separation of church and state in
> Massachusetts.
>
> Let it suffice on this head to say, that it is not possible in the
> nature of things to establish religion by human laws without
> perverting the design of civil law and oppressing the people (from The
> Yankee Spy, John Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps,
> Boston, 1794).
>
> Is it the duty of a deist to support that which he believes to be a
> cheat and imposition? Is it the duty of the Jew to support the
> religion of Jesus Christ, when he really believes that he was an
> imposter? Must the papist be forced to pay men for preaching down the
> supremacy of the pope, whom they are sure is the head of the church?
> Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than
> it has with the principles of mathematics (from The Yankee Spy, John
> Leland writing under the pen name of Jack Nipps, Boston, 1794).
>
> http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qleland.htm
Yes, this might be him. He does sound interesting, and the book you
posted from him was also interesting.
The only gotcha is that I don't see any reference to him being a
doctor.
Doug
> Anthropologist 1979, Vol. 81(2): 338-341.
>
> Dr. John Leland Champe was a dynamic man. Champe was active as a
> businessman, professor, expert witness, husband, and played various
> roles during times of war. He made lasting contributions to
> anthropology and was the founding director of the University of
> Nebraska’s Institute for Plains Anthropology.
>
> Dr. Champe's work in anthropology began with twenty years as founding
> director of anthropology at the University of Nebraska. Some of his
> more influential works include Sweetwater, Ash Hollow Cave, and White
> Cat Village. Following his retirement from the university, Champe’s
> focus turned to helping Native Americans with land claims against the
> government. He authored several reports for the Land Claims Commission
> which where later used successfully in court battles. Champe also
> played a pivotal role in lobbying the government for the Pick-Sloan
> Damn Project. His dedication helped preserve artifacts that would have
> been otherwise washed away by the proposed damn. Finally, Champe
> contributed to World events: WWI – as a soldier, and WWII- as a math
> tutor for engineers.
>
> Woods’ obituary provides an in depth look at the life of his late
> professor. His affection towards this influential figure is apparent
> only in the final paragraph. Here Wood expresses his gratitude to Dr.
> Champe’s dedicated and demanding teaching. Consequently, through
> careful analysis and warm sentiment, Wood provides a precise,
> purposeful and inspiring look at Dr. John Leland Champe: 1895 – 1978.
>
> CLARITY: 5
>
> CATERINA SNYDER University of Alberta (Heather Young Leslie)
>
> Wood, Raymond. John Leland Champe (1895-1978). American
> Anthropologist June, 1979. Vol. 81(2): 338-341.
>
> John Champe, born in Elwood, Nebraska, on 27 April 1895, passed away
> in Lincoln, Nebraska, on 28 January 1978. Champe obtained his B.A. in
> mathematics from the University of Nebraska in 1921; he received his
> Ph.D. in anthropology from Columbia University in 1946.
>
> Champe was appointed the director of the Laboratory of Anthropology at
> Columbia University in 1941. In 1951, the Department of Anthropology
> was established, and he was appointed as the Chairman. Champe served
> on the Executive Council of the Society for American Archaeology from
> 1947-1950. His knowledge in Plains archaeology allowed him to become
> an expert witness for the Indian Land Claims Commission. John Champe
> was a nationally recognized scholar in archaeology and ethnohistory.
>
> CLARITY RANKING: 4
>
> CHAD R. BROEKER Purdue University, (Myrdene Anderson)
>
> http://www.publicanthropology.org/Archive/Aa1979.htm
>
> sean:
> Anyone know what Gail was studying at Washinton Uni in 1962 ish ??
>
> Do you know if the good doctor at the age of around 67 years, was say
> lecturing or on a speaking tour in California or Wash. around
> 1963-65 ?
>
> He would have been a bit of an retired expert on the spiritual beliefs
> and practices and experiences of many of the Native American tribes at
> that time. Well I'd guess he was, as well as an academic writer of
> note, no doubt.
>
> ... oh well i have no spare time to spend on this, as I already am
> over-loaded and behind on other things here. so good luck <G>
I think the Elder John Leland was a better fit.
Doug
I have With A Great Master in India. JJ wrote this before Path of The
Masters.
The book is a series of letters he wrote mostly to friends back in the
US who wanted to know more about Radhasoami. He writes them from the
early 1930's.
JJ lived in India throughout the 1930's. I believe he died in 1939
shortly before POTM was published.
The Great Master was indeed Sawan Singh. He was referred to that title
by many in Radhasoami Beas.
Etznab
Doug,
Thanks for sharing that. I didn't know much about the book.
And still don't.
Etznab
Doug
Actually, if I was going to give it a name I would call it editorial
changes.
Editing is done all the time. And authors do have the right to edit
their own writings.
I don't see the crime.
>
> *****************************************************
>
> Later on in your response you mentioned what
> appears to be an opinion about Rebazar Tarzs.
> In fact I notice you mentioned that name quite
> a lot in your response.
>
> "I wouldn't say this is strong enough to say we
> should expect RT's name in TTF, but it seems
> to me that way over-reaching to say it is not
> likely."
>
> Let me clarify something as I understand it &
> you (or anybody else) can correct if it's wrong.
> The year was 1963 when Paul Twitchell "sent"
> a copy of TTF manuscript to Kirpal Singh but,
> in this response of your's, Do you now believe
> that RT's name appears in 1963? Not in 1964
> at the earliest? This is something new I see.
> Is this something based on fact, or something
> you believe, suspect, or want to believe?
I tried to make this as clear as possible, but I'll try again.
I have seen no record of RTs name anywhere before 1964. But we know
that Paul wrote his Letters to Gail before this. Did RT's name appear
in any of those letters? I don't know. One day we will know, but I
don't know, nor have I heard from anyone who said they know.
The same is true with The Tigers Fang. I haven't heard anyone who said
that RT's name was not in the original manuscript. For all we know, it
could have been in the 1957 draft, and it could have been in the 1963
copy that Paul sent to Kirpal. I haven't heard from anyone who knows
the answer.
My point is that there is a big assumption a lot of people have made
that RT's never was in the manuscript, but from what I've been able to
determine this came from Kirpal's comment that Paul had changed his
name to another guru's name. But this doesn't mean RT wasn't also in
the book from the beginning. It only says that Kirpal's name was
originally mentioned, but was later changed. Paul might have mentioned
both RT and Kirpal, exactly the same way he did in his article on the
God Eaters, which he published in 1964.
So, my point is that we can't rule out the idea that RT was in the
manuscript all along without more evidence.
Does that clear up the confusion?
I thought I was being very clear, but I think you are just wanting to
confirm what I said.
So, I've seen no evidence that SS or RT are mentioned or written by
Paul before 1963.
I was not in any way suggesting there was a proven case, nor even that
there was any evidence. My point is that we don't know if RT is
mentioned in the original TTF or in the original Letters to Gail. We
don't know if Paul mentions SS or RT in any of his letters before
1963.
I have seen one manuscript of Paul's that suggest a reference to Sudar
Singh before 1963, but I would say it is only a provocative bit of
evidence. It was in a manuscript he had written that was titled The
Lady of ECK, which was a title that was hand written afterward. The
original manuscript, however, was typed in 1960 and 1961. This was
about a year or so after Paul's sister, Katie, died. In the manuscript
he is taken out of his body by the one he calls The Lady of ECK and
meets with his sister. She berates him for not settling down to do his
work and he talks with her about their early days together in Paris,
going through an old cemetery and being with the presence of Master
Singh.
He doesn't say Sudar Singh, but this couldn't have been Kirpal Singh,
since this would have been in the 1920's or 1930's he was talking
about, long before he knew Kirpal.
So, here is a record of something written before 1963 and it refers to
Paul being with Katie in Paris when they were young (it doesn't say
France) and a reference to Master Singh. It couldn't have been Kirpal
no matter how you slice it, since Kirpal never claimed any kind of
mastership until after Sawan Singh died, which was in 1948.
Little things like this can change everything, and my point is that we
know so little, but people have formed such strong opinions when there
is really a lot less that we know than what we don't know.
>
> I probably won't resond to the rest of your
> post without clarifying this first part first. I
> also have to find time to read the rest of
> this thread. Maybe some clarification will
> turn up there.
>
> Etznab
I've just found time to get back and review ARE again.
Thanks for clarifying and making sure of what I was trying to say.
Doug.
Doug
Paul wrote. This was his book. He wrote it.
As I've said before, I see The Far Country as a fictionalized
dialogue, similar to Stranger By The River.
>
> You want to talk about Rebazar Tarzs, Doug? That's good.
> So do I.
>
> "And when he finishes writing TFC, he starts mentioning RT
> in his articles."
>
> OK. I think I see the reference to 1963 coming in here. That
> was the time 1963-1964 when Paul Twitchell wrote TFC and
> TFC (the versions I've seen) mention Rebazar Tarzs. Except
> TFC was published years later. Maybe you have seen Paul's
> source manuscript for The Far Country? Where it had RT's
> name mentioned in it? Was it 1963, or 1964?
As strange as it may seem, I did see the original manuscript of The
Far Country. It was in 1973 when I was working in the shipping
department at the Eckankar Office, which was in Las Vegas at the time.
Gail had asked that some of the manuscripts be sent back to her. They
had been sitting in a vault at the office for some reason, and she
asked they be sent back. They were given to me and I packaged them up
and shipped them to her.
I briefly saw The Far Country manuscript and flipped through it, but
since I had no awareness of any controversy back then, I can't
remember whether I saw any cases of RT's name being scribbled in. I
think I would have noticed that if it had been. That would have jumped
out at me enough that I would have remembered it. But I can't remember
seeing anything strange.
I loved The Far Country. It has always been one of my favorites by
Paul. So, I was thrilled to see the original. But except for the noted
sense of spiritual power I felt coming through, I don't remember
anything else.
So, this is more of an impression that I have than anything, that RT
was in TFC from the beginning. Also, the fact that he mentions RT in
the God Eaters about the time he is finishing TFC. So, it seems to
fit.
But no, I don't know this for a fact. It is purely an inner impression
I have.
Thanks for sharing this. I was hoping we could just share some guesses
at what Paul's motivations might have been.
It's purely guesswork, but sometimes during the discussion we realize
some things.
For example, it occurred to me that I hadn't questioned this before
because I had accepted this idea from David that Paul had been
studying with Kirpal for over 10 years. But now that we see a number
of confirmations that Paul had indeed stopped seeing himself as
Kirpal's student long before 1963, I realized that I didn't know why
Paul gave Kirpal his manuscript.
I noticed Sean's suggestion that may Kirpal asked for it. That sounds
like a real possibility as well.
Your question was if Paul was just trying to stay in Kirpal's good
graces and keeping him as a friend. I do get a sense that this is part
of it. However, I think the question is how far do we take this
motivation?
For example, Paul seems to work toward keeping friendships with all
the groups he was involved with. We see friendly letters to those who
knew him when he worked for L Ron Hubbard, and I've seen letters who
wrote to those who he knew with Kirpal's group, and Swami Premananda's
group. So, this certainly seems consistent that he would work toward
maintaining friendships.
However, I think we are asking if Paul was trying to go further than
that. To be more specific: Was Paul doing this because he wanted to
use Kirpal's name? And secondly, did Paul feel that keeping Kirpal as
a friend was going to help him in other ways?
You said that you've been wondering if Paul wanted to keep Kirpal in
his good graces, but my question is why? Why do you think Paul might
have wanted to do this?
I can see Paul realizing that he wanted to start publishing his own
writings, with Gail's encouragement. It was something I think he may
have thought about on and off for a long time, but in 1963 it seemed
like the right time. So, as Paul starts to talk about his Cliffhanger
philosophy and starts to mention what he calls Eckankar for the first
time, and he gets deluged with questions about what it is, he wants to
talk about who he arrived at it. Mentioning Kirpal as one of his
teachers, along with Swami Premananda, and Sudar Singh and RT are the
way he approaches is.
So, there is a benefit here if Kirpal is sympathetic and they retain a
friendship. I think it seems like a nice way to start, if one of his
previous teachers is supportive. I can see this. But I don't know if
this means that Paul was going out of his way trying to curry Kirpal's
favor, as you asked. In other words, was he pretending to be friendly?
From Paul's previous history, it seems that he highly valued his
friendships and they were sincere. I certainly saw hundreds of letters
to Paul even back in the 1940's that showed this and that others felt
just as genuinely fond of Paul. So, this would suggest that Paul was
simply continuing on with his friendship with Kirpal, not artificially
trying to make it into something it wasn't.
The whole issue of gaining benefit from Kirpal's name, by the way, is
the exact opposite from the argument that David pushed. His point was
that Paul should have been ashamed with not being open about the fact
that he studied under Kirpal, in his later years. He never seems to
recognize that referring to and associating with another teacher's
name could just as easily be considered using their name for his
benefit. And it does seem ironic that now you are raising this,
because this would mean that Paul was guilty of using Kirpal's
reputation by associating with him and at the same time being accused
of hiding his association as if it were a cover-up.
That's the thing I find so curious about all of this, that people can
see a negative both ways. He's damned if it did and damned if he
didn't. Which just proves that negative critical views are the real
issue here, not Paul. He can't be guilty of both, and it is likely
that he wasn't guilty of either. Why do I say this? Because I don't
see Paul ever being afraid to speak his mind or do things that are not
popular, and I never see him bowing to authority. I do see him showing
a great deal of respect to others and speaking positively about others
to encourage them and because he seems to care about them.
In other words, he was an individual through and through, and he
encouraged everyone else to be one as well. You can see this most
clearly in Letters to Gail. He is never trying to get Gail to believe
what he believed. He is trying to give her a foundation for being
herself and understanding in depth what that means.
If Kirpal had asked to see Paul's TTF manuscript, I do agree with Sean
that Paul would probably have sent it. However, I think Kirpal would
probably have read it then, don't you think? And it doesn't seem as if
he did. It seems more resonable that Kirpal was incredibly friendly
with Paul face to face and in all of their letters, but secretly
Kirpal did not approve of what Paul was doing and said so repeatedly
to others behind Paul's back. So, it doesn't seem that likely that
Kirpal would have asked to see the manuscript and it is more likely
that when he did see the manuscript that he would not have read it and
would have ignored it.
That's just a guess, but seems to be the picture that I see emerging
from all of this.
Which still leaves open the question of what Paul was thinking when he
sent TTF to Kirpal. Had he talked with Kirpal about his intentions to
start writing more about his teaching Eckankar? Paul had been writing
all along, as we saw from the Ananai article. Or did Paul not mention
his plans, or did he even have plans in 1963? Did he think Kirpal
might publish TTF? That seems really odd to me now. I find that hard
to believe, knowing that he had stopped seeing Kirpal as his teacher
in 1957. Paul couldn't afford to publish the book himself at the time,
so I suppose there is a possibility that if Kirpal was supportive he
might have backed getting the book into print, especially if Kirpal's
name was included.
Still pondering this.
>
> As for Rebazar Tarzs and what, who, when, where and
> the time his name first appeared according to facts and
> not myths I'm not prepared to state for sure.
>
> Just two things I saw on my timeline that look curious
> to me.
>
> (1)
>
> Paul Mentions Sar Bachan - July 8th, 1963 letter LTG 2
>
> (2)
>
> "It is an interesting coincidence that one year before Paul
> formally began Eckankar (1964), the first English translation
> of Sar Bachan was published in Beas, India with translation
> help from Dr. Julian Johnson. This work, which describes
> itself as an abstract of the teachings of Soami Ji Maharaj,
> the founder of the Radha Soami system of Surat Shabda
> Yoga, contained the outlines of the tradition which Paul
> used to create Eckankar. Paul would have depended on
> such English sources because it was apparent that he did
> not speak or read Hindi. [....]"
>
> http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/twitchell01.html
>
> I was thinking about what are the chances Rebazar Tarzu
> appears someplace in Sar Bachan? Just a small curiosity
> I want to explore further.
>
> Etznab
There is no mention of Rebazar in Sar Bachan.
I've both the Beas english version and the Soamibagh version. The
Soamibagh version, by the way, is much closer to the original. Beas
made some changes and left some things out. However, the Soamibagh
english version came out later. The Hindi version which was the
original was first published by Soamibagh, by the way.
My copy of the Beas edition says that 1964 was the 4th Edition. That
means it was first published long before 1964. Apparently 3,000 copies
were printed in 1964. But it doesn't mention what year the first
edition or second or third editions were printed.
The forward to the Beas edition says that it was translated from the
original Hindi by Sardar Sewa Singh, Sessions Judge in the Civil
Courts of the Punjab, and Julian Johnson assisted him in this task.
That means it was probably first published in the 1930's. It says the
first edition was published under the authority of Huzur Maharaj Sawan
Singh Ji. That means it was probably in the 1930's, but was no later
than 1948.
In fact, looking at the Introduction to the Beas edition, it was
written by Julian Johnson and dated 1934. So, that was probably when
the book was first published.
Who said the first english edition of Sar Bachan was published in
1964?
Doug.
Etznab
Why don't "we" know? Gail was married to Darwin Gross,
Paul Twitchell's successor. Would it not have been known
for a good many years what appeared in the original letters
to Gail? Eckankar later published these. Remember? LTG
Vol. One came out in 1973. What was the source if not the
original letter? We don't know?
As for The Tiger's Fang, Paul wrote that he gave a copy to
Gail around 1963. And still "we" don't know?
Where did the history go that could confirm the answers to
these questions? Whether Rebazar Tarzs' name appear-
ed in LTG or TTF?
I never heard of The Lady of ECK manuscript typed in 1960
and 1961. However, I argue against the allusion to Sudar S.
and that it couldn't have been Kirpal Singh because events
written about reportedly took place in the 1920s. Paul wrote
it in the 1960s long after he knew Kirpal Singh.
It was clear what you said. Thanks for sharing all of it. The
assumptions can go both ways though, IMO. Especially if
the truth has not been verified and confirmed.
Etznab
Doug
> On Feb 22, 12:01 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> Big Snip - to hone in on the core issue as i see it.
>
> I liked the ending reply from Doug, seems to be self-explanatory.
>
> The Framing of the Responsibility for other people's choices onto
> David Lane, as if he is the key character who is responsible for any
> harm caused, or for people being led away from their spiritual path as
> a result of errors and deceptive framing.
>
> This is a framing that I do not accept, and in fact totally reject as
> misguided and short-sighted. Whilst naturally acknowledging it is an
> aspect of the Whole Truth of the history of Eckankar's History, it is
> far from being the CORE Issue. It is but a trigger that would not go
> away. .
>
>
>
> SEAN:
>
> > > Gosh yes, what on earth is there to argue about here? What has David
> > > done that is so bad or wrong. Seems to me he is far more right than he
> > > is wrong about things that matter? What is there to be afraid of?
> > > Nothing! ;-)
>
>
> > I agree there is nothing to be afraid of.
>
> > As for what David did, I'll put it this way: If I had come out and
> > openly critcized and attacked a person's reputation and then found out
> > I was even partially wrong, never mind so far off from the truth as he
> > was, I would have felt horrible and would openly have apologized and
> > made a public statement to correct my mistake.
>
>
> > And if I had caused some people to leave their faith on what turned
> > out, even partially, to be inaccurate information or misleading, I
> > would have been humbled and would also have publicy done what I could
> > to make up for such an aggregious error.
>
>
> Would you Doug apply this value upon all such cases of and I
> QUOTE ::
>
> >..... if I had caused some people to leave their faith on what turned
> > out, even partially, to be inaccurate information or misleading, I
> > would have been humbled and would also have publicy done what I could
> > to make up for such an aggregious error.
>
> that you are in charge of the Eckankar organisation today, as let's
> say President, or perhaps another member of the current Board.
>
> Now following your values and opinions as stated, as a responsible
> Office Holder of a Worldwide Organisation that has an effect and
> influence upon the lives of tens of thousands of individuals in over
> 100 different nations, and on behalf of the Membership of Eckankar
> itself, and as the authorised agent of Living ECK Master of the day,
> how exactly would you apply this Policy across the organisation and
> make it manifest in such a way that it had an affect on the
> Organisation, it's people, it's supporters, and it's normal practices
> and general attitude.
>
> How would YOU go about theoretically speaking of course, in repairing
> any harm done by any agregious errors by the organisation of Eckankar
> since Oct 22 1965?
>
> I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this, if such a
> viewpoint has ever crossed your mind before.
Interesting question. I don't usually think of what I might do in
hypothetical situations because my experience has been that real life
never looks like hypothetical situations. Once you are in a position,
it is always far different from what you expected.
Also, what I was speaking about above was about personal
responsibility. Organizational responsibility is another creature and
much more complex.
For example, how does an organization hold responsibility? Only people
can actually respond. An organization is an amalgam and combination of
people. Does an organization have a brain or voicebox or fingers to
type with? Only people do.
So, do you hold a new leader responsible for what was done before they
were there?
My experience is that organizations do have responsibility, because it
is a conscious entity, but it can only act through the people who are
its leaders and employees. All employees, not just leadership, should
feel as if they are carrying that responsibility. New leaders who step
in are picking up all the karma and problems created in the past, just
as new employees are. So, yes, it is important to resolve issues and
to clear the air, because that enables the organization to more
forward and grow.
However, one person can not by themselves make an organization do what
they want. That's a nice dream, but it is not reality. Even the
president of a company can only lead. They can certainly demand
certain things and set certain policies, but the fact is that
employees do what they want nonetheless. Sometimes they don't
understand. Sometimes they don't agree. Sometimes they don't care. But
an organization has a life of its own and no one person can make it do
what they want, since it is a living thing with a mind of its own.
I do think these things from Eckankar's history should be openly known
and stated. We should try to present as honest a representation of
historical events as possible. I think the plagiarism issue should be
openly addressed.
But that is probably obvious, since that is what I did in my book. I
did what I thought was best. I did this as an individual, but I also
did it with the hopes of leading the organization as well. Leadership,
by the way, comes from all levels in an organization, including from
outside of it. We are all leaders if we decide to carry that
responsibility. But that doesn't mean we speak for the organization as
an official voice. Yet, anyone who is sensitive to the consciousness
of living things can speak for that conscious being. Look at the
environmentalists who speak for planet Earth. Look at spiritual
leaders who speak for the Lords of the other worlds.
I think a lot of our discussions here are people trying to speak for
the organization, but as you can see there are tons of varying
viewpoints on what it should do or not do. That's the complexity of an
organization. It is not one voice but thousands of voices.
My experience is that the biggest problem organizations have is self-
awareness. It takes extraordinary leadership to bring clear self-
awareness to an organization. The nature of organizations is to lose
self-awareness of what it is and why it exists.
>
> If you had never ever considered such a question as being a potential
> possibility that might need to be addressed, then that's fine, then
> please just a simple acknowledgement that this idea has never crossed
> your mind before, and that will end the matter.
>
> Nothing more need be said.
>
> > But I still have a lot of respect for David, since he has always
> > spoken honestly about what he knew, even if it made him look bad, and
> > he has encourage open dialogue and was willing to respond to lots of
> > questions for many years, which helped us understand better what he
> > had based his accusations on, and helped us get to a better
> > understanding. He also has a wealth of information about Radhasoami.
>
> Well, that's nice.
>
> Why would we care what he has about Radhasoami? What could that have
> to do with us or Eckankar Doug?
>
> The official website says paul got the core of his teaching from
> Rebazar tarzs and Sudar Singh Doug, not Radhasoami. I think your book
> pretty well suggests the same thing.
I find Radhasoami fascinating. I've enjoyed my studies of its
teaching. I feel the same towards Sufism. I have strong feelings
towards both.
I also think the historical study of Sant Mat will give a good
insights into the future issues that Eckankar will end up facing.
There are more differences than similarities, but there is still
something to be learned.
I think ultimately the source of Eckankar is the inner teachers and
spiritual path. I think that same source is also the source for Sant
Mat and Sufism. I hope that Eckankar retains its awareness of its
place as the original source and never gets too caught up in the names
of the teachers or the Masters. Because, if it starts to become a
history of names, then it will end up like Sant Mat and the endless
disputes of lineages. Sant Mat has become too much focused on physical
masters, which has taken it far from its own origins. Will Eckankar go
down this same path and become a little stream, while losing the
fountainhead?
It's an ever present question.
>
> I think your previous post also mentioned that Radhasoami was but a
> small part, just one path of many that Paul integrated into his new
> creation he named as Eckankar in July 1963 and in January 1964.
>
> > If everyone does what they believe is the right thing, how can we ask
> > any more than that? I think David always has.
>
> > Doug.
>
> That is another opinion. I'm not so certain as you appear that what
> you think on that subject really matters. But that's is only my
> opinion. :)
>
> Thanks Sean
As always, you are right, Sean, but that doesn't matter either. :-)
Doug.
Doug
> On Feb 28, 9:04 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > > ... oh well i have no spare time to spend on this, as I already am
> > > over-loaded and behind on other things here. so good luck <G>
>
> > I think the Elder John Leland was a better fit.
>
>
> And I can only assume the non answer is you have no knowledge as what
> Gail was studying in WA. Actually i have a vague memory it was either
> literature, or something to do with being a Librarian. Might have seen
> that written by Paul or Patti.
>
> We know Marge is an Anthropologist .. wasn't she? Did she study with
> Dr John Leland Campe at anytime during her college days or after
> wards? Wouldn't that be a funny co-incidence? :)
>
> Maybe Patti knows. maybe Millie Moore knew too. Maybe it's irrelevant
> to most people. Maybe there is something more about this in the
> personal archives of Paul Twitchell stored by Eckankar in MN.
>
> Oh hang on, Gail would know for sure
>
> At least that is a fact for certain.
>
> OK thanks Sean
That would be an interesting question to ask Gail.
I suppose we could also ask Dr Leland himself. We could have a seance
and see what he has to say. But that evidence probably wouldn't hold
up in court.
Doug.
Doug
> On Feb 28, 9:02 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, this might be him. He does sound interesting, and the book you
> > posted from him was also interesting.
>
> > The only gotcha is that I don't see any reference to him being a
> > doctor.
>
> was always so meticulous and accurate when writing letters and his
> books. And there's no way anyone would have ever edited or deleted
> something after he died.
>
> One can always take what Paul has written, or been published by
> Eckankar, and take it *literally* as an accurate record when they want
> to. So yes, given this then the word "doctor" may even be a critical
> aspect to guide one's searching, iow narrowing one's search
> parameters.
Or maybe he went to college after he died so he was a doctor by the
time Gail met up with him. :)
Doug
> On Feb 28, 8:56 am, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree with you that information is not protected by copyrights.
>
>
> > Which is why, after they gave me permission to read through their
> > files, I was free to say anything I wanted to about it. They didn't
> > restrict me in what I wrote or tell me that I couldn't say certain
> > things.
>
> speech stuff.
Copyright law can prevent people from publishing things. But copyright
don't protect information, titles, plots, story lines, etc. It only
protects the overall work.
So, if they owned the copyrights, they could stop me from publishing
the words of a whole letter, for example. However, I could describe
the letter and the information in the letter, because copyrights don't
cover that.
Free speech doesn't give someone the rights to share trade secrets,
for example. No employee of Coca Cola can give out the secret formula
for Coke on the grounds of free speech.
Ownership rights trump free speech.
>
> IOW totally irrelevant to the core issue, and just a distraction from
> the underlying legalities.
>
> > The only thing they controlled was ownership of the files
> > themselves.
>
> > This is not an ownership of information. It is an ownership of
> > property, which in this case were physical letters and articles.
>
> Really ... so then they had no problem when you turned up with a non-
> flash camera unit to photograph the text they had absolutely NO
> PROBLEM with you taking away the content, and leaving the physical
> letters and articles in the same condition they were before you
> arrived?
They had clear guidelines and procedures that they laid down. If I
wanted to access the files, I needed to follow their rules.
Since they own the files, I of course agreed. I was actually happy to
respect their rules. They had, after all, carefully preserved and
protected the documents for 60 years. They follow rigorous practices
to assure the files will last a long time. For examples, they place
acid-free paper between pages. They keep them under temperature and
humidity controlled environments.
But no photographs allowed. And we needed to handle every page with
care. They kept an eye on us. However, I was somewhat familiar with
all of this, so I didn't mind. I enjoyed it.
But they never stopped me with what I was going to do with the
information I gained. They never even asked me or tried to influence
what I was going to do with the information.
I sent them a copy of The Whole Truth afterward and they added it to
the files. I also gave the librarians there credit for their help.
>
> And when I fly over from Australia, then I can totally expect being
> able to to the dame thing .. when I turn up every day for a week to
> *see* everyone of those 1000 plus articles they store there?
Yes. They have students from all over the world, so I'm sure they'd
let even an Aussie in.
>
> Doug, I don't see the point in me responding to the rest of your post
> here, besides the ending.
>
> > I'm sure they would even let Australians visit.
>
> How very very kind of them .. gosh, even an Australian can visit their
> library in Kentucky.
>
> Gosh, I never knew that. What a surprise, and oh how helpful of them.
>
> > One day in the future they will probably digitize it all.
>
> > Doug.
>
> Tomorrow sounds perfect. That is one day in the future.
But tomorrow never arrives...
Etznab
Doug,
I think that makes more sense to me, too. From what I have
come across.
[This is not an ordered response to your response. I'm just
gonna talk at you.]
It was a consideration about Paul maybe wanting to stay in
the good graces of Kirpal Singh. I explain why I considered
this already. However, I'm not stating that I know what were
the reasons, if that was Paul's intention.
In the Ananai article it mentioned Ruhani Satsang and not
Eckankar.
Some site mentioned an English version of Sar Bachan. I
gave a reference to that already? If not, it doesn't matter to
me a whole lot now since you clarified about the book.
Umm... if Paul was known as a promoter, even as a self
promoter, I don't see why he wouldn't send a copt of TTF
to Kirpal Singh. And with Kirpal' Singh's name in it. May-
be just another fictionalized dialogue. I don't know.
Why are people still trying to confirm history for Rebazar
Tarzs anyway? If some of it were fiction? To sort out the
fact from fiction? I think this is happening. However, and
at the same time, How does one find actual histories
for fictional things? I mean, if a history doesn't exist? be-
cause it's fiction, then one isn't going to find one except
in their imagination, perhaps. Well what if that was part
of it? That Paul wrote some fictional history to assist in
the imaginations of his readers seeking a homogeneous
story? In this case the history is not important because
it's literally true, but because it makes for a better story.
IMO. If that were true.
Not looking for answerrs to all those question marks. It
was just me pondering / contemplating out loud. I don't
care if anybody answers them, or not. I kinda felt this
same way about your response to me. I might not have
answered every question mark, but chose what seemed
the most important to address. And I answered in a
random, round about way, too. Sorry about that.
Really am enjoying the history you share, Doug. Also
the history, speculations, opinions, etc. of others here
at A.R.E. Hey, we might even be approaching satsang
at A.R.E. :)
Etznab
Doug
I noticed that you put the we in quotes above when you asked why we
don't know.
The originals for Letters to Gail exist and are in the files
somewhere. So, this can be checked. I don't have the access, otherwise
I would check.
So, that's why "I" don't know.
Same with The Tiger's Fang.
Someone knows, but I don't. I gather you don't either, so that means
that "we" don't know.
I think your question is not so much why you and I don't know, but why
people can't find out or this hasn't been made public before. That's
something I can't answer.
Your argument that the Lady of ECK reference could have referred to
Kirpal doesn't work. As I said, the passage is clearly talking about
when Katie and Paul were in their youth, long before Paul knew of
Kirpal. To interpret that as referring to Kirpal would mean that Paul
was saying that Kirpal was his master back decades before he knew
Kirpal or before Kirpal was a master. That makes no sense. Also, since
we have three statements from Paul before 1960 that he no longer was
studying with Kirpal, then why would he be even trying to push Kirpal
back into some impossible time traveler position?
I don't see how that makes any sense. But I'm open to the idea if you
can explain it in a way that fits. I did ask myself the same question
to begin with, but finally realized that it couldn't have been Kirpal.
It could have been Sawan Singh or it could have been Sudar Singh, or
someone else. But what is most interesting about this is that this
seems to be the first version of Paul's story of being in Paris with
Katie and Sudar Singh. It is just a passing reference, not for the
purpose of giving his history or background, just relating a memory.
So, this to me suggests there was indeed something real to this story.
Thanks.
Doug.
Etznab
My point about the story was the date it was written.
Paul was writing about his past. So why assume that
everything he wrote about it was true? I'm not going to
go that far. However, I did find it remarkable this was
the first mention of a Paris story.
I like the approach of not believing anything for sure
without first knowing it for sure. Especially in the com-
puter / Internet age where everybody who is anybody
wants to share what they "know". Remember I didn't
read the Lady of ECK manuscript.
My example of putting "we" in quotes was because I
don't like using the word we in these dialogues where
it might appear I'm speaking for others. I don't like to
use it for that reason. For articulation and communic-
ation purposes on these venues, however, it's some-
times hard to avoid using it. Nevertheless I try to not
use it. Putting we in quotes is a new habit of mine. I
guess it could be misleading and maybe I shouldn't
use it in that way.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> *usually* looks like a big *out* from having to honestly clarify your
> actual thoughts to me.
>
> For the record, I'd much prefer simple, *i'd rather not answer such a
> personal query at all*.
>
> > because my experience has been that real life
> > never looks like hypothetical situations. Once you are in a position,
> > it is always far different from what you expected.
>
> > Also, what I was speaking about above was about personal
> > responsibility. Organizational responsibility is another creature and
> > much more complex.
>
> > For example, how does an organization hold responsibility? Only people
> > can actually respond. An organization is an amalgam and combination of
> > people. Does an organization have a brain or voicebox or fingers to
> > type with? Only people do.
>
> organisations like the Fannie Mac, and Lehmann Brothers, and Goldman
> Sachs, and the Govt of Iran.
>
> > So, do you hold a new leader responsible for what was done before they
> > were there?
>
> realise just how inappropriate such a question really is under the
> circumstances?
> the framing of that query. It is what it is. OK, that's fine with me
> because it was your choice to make.
>
> SNIP
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The official website says paul got the core of his teaching from
> > > Rebazar tarzs and Sudar Singh Doug, not Radhasoami. I think your book
> > > pretty well suggests the same thing.
>
> > I find Radhasoami fascinating. I've enjoyed my studies of its
> > teaching. I feel the same towards Sufism. I have strong feelings
> > towards both.
>
> > I also think the historical study of Sant Mat will give a good
> > insights into the future issues that Eckankar will end up facing.
> > There are more differences than similarities, but there is still
> > something to be learned.
>
> > I think ultimately the source of Eckankar is the inner teachers and
> > spiritual path. I think that same source is also the source for Sant
> > Mat and Sufism.
>
> at least not as clearly without needing to look hard at the white
> spaces.
>
> Do you think "most people" in Eckankar would agree with these
> sentiments Doug?
>
> I only ask because *some people* here seem to think that what *most
> people* appear to think is somehow more important than what an
> individual thinks or asks about.
>
> I hope that Eckankar retains its awareness of its
>
> > place as the original source and never gets too caught up in the names
> > of the teachers or the Masters. Because, if it starts to become a
> > history of names, then it will end up like Sant Mat and the endless
> > disputes of lineages. Sant Mat has become too much focused on physical
> > masters, which has taken it far from its own origins. Will Eckankar go
> > down this same path and become a little stream, while losing the
> > fountainhead?
>
> > It's an ever present question.
>
> important. I guess it is an ever present question, one that I was
> already aware of since the 1980's myself.
>
> But in regards to what I was interested in and actually writing
> about , is not really relevant at all, and winds down the road to
> Hypotheticalville, which I thought wasn't a place you liked to visit
> usually.
>
> A side comment though is that I find phrases like this you made above
> as somewhat odd : "future issues", "if it starts", "disputes" over
> physical Masters.
>
> I think that tomorrow has come and gone and is already yesterday on
> these points at least.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> cheers sean
There is a glaring "red flag" which exists as a legacy
to modern-day Eckankar history 1971-1981.
Like Darwin Gross before him, Harold Klemp as leader
of "Eckankar" inherited the karma of his predecessor to
some extent IMO. He inherited a trove of already written
materials - INCLUDING ECKANKAR HISTORY.
Those persons entering the "Eckankar" fold subsequent
to 1984 have inherited even a different set of karma with
regard to "accurate records" compared to those before.
For example What changes did Harold Klemp make to
the Eckankar organization that members - if they had a
choice - would not have made? What actions did Harold
and "Eckankar" take that would later affect how others
might look at Eckankar and what it was?
Everybody has their own path, perhaps. And their own
"Eckankar". And what is / was Harold's karma is / was
not my karma. I didn't inherit the "position" Harold did.
So as an individual, the "Eckankar" that is often spoke
about could very well be an individual and the path of
an individual. However, is Harold Klemp's karma same
as every other person's Eckankar. Is there a voluntary
karma-sharing going on?
How does looking at Eckankar from this perspective
change the paradigm of who is responsible for what?
Etznab
Doug
These are great questions and exactly the point I was getting at.
Every individual feels both connected to the organizations they work
with and still separate from them. We might work for an organization
that we do not always agree with. The karma of that organization is
therefore different from ourselves.
What many people fail to realize is that this is just as true for the
leaders of organizations as it is for everyone else. People get this
idea in their heads that leaders run the organizations so it does
whatever they want. They call the shots. But in fact, they make
decisions and do what they do, but that isn't always what changes
things in the organization.
So, yes, it is exactly as if the organization is an individual with a
life path of its own. Exactly. And that means it has its own karma and
its own state of consciousness and level of self-awareness.
So, a good leader isn't running it, but is working with it. We can't
run another person. We can offer advice. We can try to lead and show
and inspire and encourage, but the organization is a living thing -
and so is the spiritual path.
You are right that Harold has taken on karma because he chose to
change the direction of the organization into a way that not everyone
agreed with. Even if he did so out of inspiration from God and only
acting with God as a co-worker, still the reaction of what he did will
be experienced by him. Harold was quite conscious of all this. In
other words, this was his choice and he knew this meant living with
the consequences.
But this only means that his personal experience will carry his own
karma or reactions, but this doesn't mean all that the organization is
going through is his creation.
In the same way, we each have our individual reactions with the
organization, especially if we try to change it, just as Harold has.
But the organization still has a life of its own and no one can
control it or force it to do what they want, because it is a living
thing.
Yes, this is exactly why the question of who is responsible for what
is an impossible one to answer. Those who try to hold one person
accountable are merely looking for scapegoats. They are often trying
to blame someone else because they don't want to accept any blame for
themselves. That has nothing to do with truth.
Thanks.
Doug.
Doug
>
> Sorry to start off this way, but I am not sure it helps much at all.
> This karma business I never like except as a general discussion. I may
> been misleading and not clear enough. Just in case, this might
> articulate better where I am coming from here. and what underpins the
> comments and the words I use, and how I am using them in this specific
> context about the irrational confusing History and the stories about
> it, and 40 years of arguments and conflicts about it.
>
> My position is that whom ever is responsible, is.
>
> No one's opinion about it, my own included, makes a shred of
> difference.
>
> All I have to work with is Now, the rest is fluff, imho. :)
>
> When I joined in 1987, I can say from my own direct experience that
> there was a shared group emotional engram over Darwin. I think that
> describes it accurately, but it was something that existed within a
> bell curve of degrees of affect. But it was real, and it is still
> there today. But like all other engrams that individuals have to deal
> with, this one has also grown and taken on a life of it;s own, one
> quite removed from reality ..... as all over-sized personal engrams
> tend to be when left alone to fester in the dark corners of one's mind
> unconsciously, ignored, and repressed as much as is possible.
>
> A Doctor of good-will, when operating on a patient in a hospital,
> doesn't bother getting involved in who was responsible for that
> patient arriving in an ambulance. He just does whatever is required to
> save the patient and heal them.
>
> I think the blame game isn't worth playing. At the same time whatever
> role one has, usually comes with some kind of responsibilities.
> Appointments automatically entail making someone *responsible* for a
> thing, or for others, as a direct outcome of the role they play. That
> is what I mean when I use the term *responsible for*.
>
> One needs to keep in mind how the semantics can be mis-understood.
> Example :
> Obama was not directly responsible for the USA and Co invasion of Iraq
> in 2003.
> Obama was responsible for his VOTE on things that came before him in
> the Senate after he became a Senator.
> Obama IS RESPONSIBLE for his decisions about Iraq since he became
> President and untook the responsibilities of that *role*.
>
> Therefore whatever happens today, regarding Iraq etc, then Obama
> carries a certain degree of responsibility for that today, and until
> he leaves Office.
>
> Whatever happened during the last 50 years that got the USA into Iraq,
> has nothing to do with Obama personally.
>
> As such one should be able to discuss prior American actions and
> policies that may have an impact of historical events leading up to
> today, but that doesn't mean that is Obama's responsibility now, or
> that he is to blame for the nation he leads to be in the pickle it is
> today.
>
> But he IS still critically *responsible* for the Nation right now,
> today. I guess he does the best he can, given the advice and the
> information he is fed from his closest confidants.
>
> And if they screw up, HE screws up too and is ultimately personally
> responsible for that.
>
> Blame, has nothing to do with it. Nothing, needing to lay blame or
> trying to assign some kind of guilt for the past, or current errors,
> is a wasted avenue to go down. imho, it is.
>
> That's why I don't. If anything a only refer to things like "who is
> responsible, and when", collectively and individually.
>
> And I mean this in a real worked context of everyday life, of running
> an organisation, or some other entity that includes many individuals
> with defined roles and duties, and broad responsibilities.
>
> I don;t have a ref handy, there is online public domain info about
> Eckankar's documentation as a specific entity, it lists the
> responsibilities of various roles within the Organisation, and how the
> organisation is structured, and what it purpose for existence is, and
> how it says IT goes about manifesting that Purpose, that role in it's
> members lives.
>
> The term I am thinking here which may not be the correct words as in
> the documentation I saw, is "the pastoral care of members". that's
> rough ok ... but whatever it is exactly that is one aspect that the
> organisation was created in order to provide, and give it a reason for
> being. As such it is a self-declared responsibility that the
> Organisation has taken on willingly.
>
> Not only that but it openly offers such care and service towards and
> FOR the member before they join, and at the time that they joined
> onwards.
>
> At least that is my reading of it. Of course I could have it wring,
> as this is my memory from about 5 weeks ago, but so much flowing past
> these here eyes lately tis a bit blurry.
>
> Cheers sean
Sean,
In small organizations of a few people, it can work as you say. A
person has a certain responsibility, although they are still limited
by their understanding and experience.
But running a large organization or a country is something completely
different.
So, if Obama was really running the US, then why can't he get a health
bill passed? He knows what he wants to do. He tells people what he
wants to do. Guess what, no one is doing it because he says he wants
it.
They don't work for him. The people of the US want him to work for
them. But the people of the US don't yet agree on what they want. And
there are groups who are actively working to spread misinformation to
confuse people about what is best. And there are political groups who
feel the most important thing they can do is make Obama look bad,
whether this is good for the US or not.
How on earth can Obama be responsible for all of this? He has stepped
into a karmic mess.
The issue with the US involvement in Iraq is similar. The President
does have more influence over foreign affairs, but not a whole lot
more. There are powerful groups involved in these things. He can't
just do what HE wants.
In fact, there is really very little that he can do to make a
difference. A wise leader would realize that and simply do what little
they could to influence things in the right direction.
That means realizing you aren't responsible for the whole thing. You
are only responsible for what you can do.
Leadership is not about running things. Leadership is about inspiring
others and carrying the vision so that people can feel the whole of
the country through one person. It also means demonstrating through
action.
Think about this: The moment you try to put into action the thing you
believe is right, because you are the leader and the one who is
responsible, you immediately face thousands or millions of people who
are against you. Why? Because they want you to do something else. They
don't care what you want or what you think is right. Can you fight
them all? Can you just go ahead and do what you want and what you
believe is right, forgetting what they want? If you do, you will find
yourself pulled into a karmic mess.
So, if you must listen to them all, and you must listen to the desires
of the organization itself as a living being, then you realize that
you are not running it like you would a car. You can't just steer it
wherever you want.
And if you can't make it go wherever you want, then you really aren't
responsible, are you?
Doug.
Etznab
Although some of it I wasn't sure exactly how you saw it,
nevertheless I did understand what you wrote, and agree
with a lot of it. So I would say that looked like some good
feedback, to me.
Thanks Doug.
It is not possible to put everything on one person, as far
as an organization goes (IMO). However, it took me so
many years to consider the group dynamic which is very
much part of an organization.
I know that people look at Paul, at Darwin, at Harold as
if each were responsible for all that went to make up the
Eckankar organization. That is a short-sighted and very
narrow view of the whole picture. In my opinion.
Not that I'm oblivious to "why" people might look at the
picture in this way. Especially given the position, the
authority and the distinction of a "Mahanta, Living Eck
Master".
All I want to really say is that there are more dynamics
involved when it comes to an organization, religion, etc.
(IMO) than just the one person looking at it. There are
the views of others, too. And views that others might be
inclined to accept as their own as if they were true and
based on a true physical account of history when often
the views of others are their own imaginations working
to interpret what someone else tried to explain to them.
So it's like a game of telephone sometimes, where the
original gets lost along the way. IMO. Why does it get
lost? Perhaps because someone interpreted the exper-
ience of another & made it out to be something else &
everybody else down the line basically accepted what
came to them by intermediaries.
(OK. I didn't write that it in the most articulate way, but
don't anybody try to spin what I just illustrated, because
then I will have to come back and correct you. So mark
those last nine words.)
Of course there is always that exceptional person who
would seek to reconstruct the entire message and its
history in spite of all the others who made it into some-
thing else. Wink :)
Etznab
Etznab
I like the input that everyone has given to this thread
and especially some of the things come up and dir-
ection they have taken. Not only this, but other ones
(threads) at A.R.E. too. Because, even in spite of
seeming differences in opinions and perspectives, it
looks to me like people dialoging in a more or less
mature and civil manner. Even where real disagree-
ments are sometimes voiced.
It's nice to see people sharing & trying to articulate
for others what start out as individual experiences
before they change into something else.
OK. I should maybe stick to poetry only :)
Etznab