The Guru In America - Part 2
d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com
book, The Guru in America - The Influence of Radhasoami on New
Religions. She first published this book in 1995, and we are reviewing
her chapter on Paul Twitchell.
ANDREA DIEM LANE WROTE:
Eckankar has also seen its share of controversies. When Paul Twitchell
died, he was succeeded by Darwin Gross who assumed the title of
"Living Eck Master." Gross was appointed by Twitchell's widow, Gail,
after she claims to have had a dream where she saw the transference of
power. Several months later Gail and Darwin got married only to be
divorced in the late 1970s. In 1981, Darwin Gross decided to step down
and appointed Harold Klemp as his successor. In his resignation, Gross
claimed that he was still the "Mahanta" but not the "Living Eck
Master." However, just two years later Gross was stripped of even that
title when Harold Klemp excommunicated him from Eckankar altogether
and banned the sale of all Gross related publications. The early 1980s
was a time of turmoil for Eckankar, but today in the 1990s it has
weathered the storm and has witnessed a steady increase in its
membership. Though Eckankar started originally in San Diego, it has
moved its center of operations several times: to Las Vegas to Menlo
Park and finally to its present site in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
MY COMMENTS:
I explained the matter of Gail's dream in my book, along with all the
other elements that went into her announcing Darwin Gross as Paul's
successor. It is important to note that Gail never felt that she was
appointing anyone. She refused to pick who would be the next Eck
Master. She recorded her experiences on a tape shortly after they
occurred, and listening to this tape the message is quite clear that
she and other leaders were simply recognizing Darwin as the successor,
not appointing him.
Also, Darwin and Gail were married over a year afterwards, not just
several months. But more importantly, Gail barely knew Darwin before
Paul passed on. She had met Darwin a few times at seminars with Paul,
but they were basically strangers. It took others to introduce the two
of them before the conference where she stood up to acknowledge him as
the next Eck Master.
The split between Darwin and Harold was indeed a difficult one, as
Andrea points out.
ANDREA DIEM LANE WROTE:
Eckankar has also had a long history of trying to come to grips with
its Radhasoami roots. In the 1970s a number of scholars alleged that
Twitchell tried to cover-up his association with previous real-life
gurus by creating "cover" names. For instance, in his earlier
publications for such magazines as Orion, Psychic Observer, and
Search, Twitchell profusely mentions the names of Sawan Singh, Kirpal
Singh, and other well known spiritual leaders. However, after he
started Eckankar he redacted those names when he reprinted his earlier
articles in new books. Twitchell did not change the story or the text,
as such, but rather switched names: from Kirpal Singh to "Sudar"
Singh; from Swami Premananda to "Rebazar Tarzs"; from the Holy Bible
to "The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad." What Twitchell was attempting to do is
fairly obvious: he was trying to rewrite his biography so that it
could dovetail with the antiquity of Eckankar's rich (if invented)
mythology. In doing so, however, Twitchell had to deny his Radhasoami
roots. Why? Because Twitchell wanted Eckankar to be an autonomous
tradition which stood apart from his shabd yoga cousins. The only
glitch, however, is that it was these very cousins which informed and
shaped Eckankar's theology.
MY COMMENTS:
This is a great example of how history can sometimes be written with
fiction. The story Andrea tells here, exactly as David Lane tells it,
has the ring of utmost confidence. That's because they truly believed
it was true. Unfortunately, their belief seems to have prevented them
from seeing the problems with their theory.
David Lane was convinced that the pattern of Paul redacting Kirpal
Singh's name led up gradually to the time when Paul started Eckankar.
It was part of the split that began with the Tiger's Fang incident,
and Paul's desire to break away from Kirpal to make money.
As I mentioned in the last post, that rumor turned out to be mistaken.
And once we take that imagined plot away, we see the rest of this
story falling apart.
For example, Andrea says that Paul profusely mentions the names of
Sawan Singh and Kirpal Singh. Then, after he started Eckankar he
redacted those names and replaced them with Sudar Singh and Rebazar
Tarz. What she doesn't mention is that those names weren't mentioned
that many times, but Paul was mentioning just as often the names of
Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarz before he started Eckankar. He mentions
them side by side with Kirpal Singh, Sawan Singh, Swami Premananda.
These were his teachers and he mentions them all together in the same
articles, just as you might expect.
In other words, Paul did not hide who his teachers were at first, but
he spoke openly about them.
Andrea also doesn't mention the fact, because she and David didn't
realize it at the time, that Paul continued to write and speak openly
about Kirpal Singh and Swami Premananda for a year after he started
Eckankar. And he says why: Because he felt that Kirpal was sympathetic
with his work.
This blows the whole theory that Paul was trying to deny his previous
connection or was trying to cover anything up so that he could start a
new mythology. In fact, even though David Lane outright accused Paul
of denying his connection with Kirpal, there is not a single record of
Paul ever saying or writing anything where he denied anything his
studies with Kirpal. There is no denial, just as there is no cover up.
Paul did indeed redact the names of Kirpal Singh, but there is not a
single case of this happening until one year after he started
Eckankar. So, the question is why did Paul make this change? Why did
it happen at the exact same time when both Kirpal and Paul broke off
their friendly exchange of letters? Sometime apparently happened to
cause this. What was it?
David and Andrea heard the story of the Tiger's Fang incident from
Kirpal's followers. They thought it was true. They also bought the
idea that Paul's teaching was nothing but Radhasoami under wraps, and
that Paul was denying his history. None of this is true, but it is not
hard to see why followers of Kirpal would have thought this. They
imagined Paul coming to Kirpal as a clean slate, and after 10 years of
study, learning everything from Kirpal, he wanted to break away to
become a guru himself. They were appalled and made a practice of
spreading this story far a wide. They also heard in private about
Kirpal's rejection of Paul's teaching, further reinforcing their
message.
It was this criticism toward Paul that began spilling over into the
public, which appears to be the cause of the problem. According to
Paul, Kirpal's American representative, living in Washington DC, sent
a letter to a parapsychology group in San Diego where Paul had been
giving workshops. The letter called Paul a fraud. Harold Klemp, who
apparently saw the letter, says that it said that Kirpal was the
source of Paul's teaching.
This seems to have taken place in mid-1966, the exact time when Kirpal
and Paul split up, and when Paul writes to Kirpal to ask for his
Tiger's Fang manuscript back. It was clear that Kirpal's followers
were not happy with Paul starting Eckankar. They were the ones who
felt Paul was wrong. Andrea and David are just telling this same story
that was started back then.
While David and Andrea assumed that Paul was the one to break off the
connection, the evidence shows the opposite. Kirpal's followers were
the ones who began open public criticism of Paul. Paul did not respond
in kind. He did not criticize back. He did not complain. He simply
quietly backed away and broke off connections.
Andrea and David seem to think that the big crime here is about Paul
not giving credit to Kirpal, but in fact he was openly generous in his
praise of Kirpal, until Kirpal's followers began a campaign to attack
him. By then it was clear that Kirpal was no longer was in sympathy
with Paul's teaching. Since that was the only reason Paul had been
mentioning Kirpal and drawing upon his name, the only ethical thing to
do would be to stop using Kirpal's name in association with Eckankar.
It would not be fair to use Kirpal's name if he wasn't in agreement,
and it would not be right to claim a friendship that didn't exist. If
they weren't going to work together, then they might as well part ways
with goodwill, and this is what Paul did.
From all of the evidence available today, this appears to be the real
reason why Paul suddenly began removing all references to Kirpal Singh
from his writings and talks.
However, rather than Paul's desire to break away being the cause, in
fact, it was something else that David and Andrea know all too well
from the history of Radhasoami that spurred the break in friendship
between Paul and Kirpal: It was the rejection of someone who was once
a student that left.
Interestingly enough, it was this that started Paul down the path of
removing references to his prior teachers. He described the changes he
was going through at the time, so we can see the way he began to
realize how different his teaching was, and how this taught him to
represent Eckankar in this way. And thus, this change showed him the
importance of clarifying the whole vision of the path of ECK as an
inner teaching, which is the real source and all that matters.
While David and Andrea and Kirpal's followers feel that the crime is
the way that Paul passed Kirpal's teaching off as his own, while
hiding its true source from his students, in fact the real crime is
the cover up that this story has perpetuated down through the years,
hiding how different Paul's teaching was from the very beginning, and
how Paul's studies had already covered far more breadth and scope even
before the two years he spent with Kirpal.
More in the next post.
Doug.
Etznab
Doug,
That is not hard to buy the fact that Kirpal's followers
(some of them) might publicly criticize Paul & Eckankar.
Wasn't the president of Eckankar (during Paul's time)
a former follower of Radhasoami, or Sawan Singh? Dr.
Louis Bluth? (Sawan Singh had something to do with the
Julian Johnson book, Path of the Masters, didn't he?) I
would not rule out any schisms, or that more than one
former Radhasoami follower might have admired Eckan-
kar more (For various reasons: Example: less strict, a lot
like their former path, but without Kirpal Singh. Etc.).
It goes both ways, if you ask me. Radasoami followers
can criticize Eckankar and Eckankar members criticize
Radasoami followers, etc.
I don't necessarily mean "criticize" in a bad way, but
the number of similarities are enough to leave room for
people to talk about them. IMO. Followers of Sikhs and
Sufis could talk with Eckankar members, too. However
it only seems natural to me that criticism might happen.
BTW, Doug, when you talk about "Eckankar" & when
it formed I think it's better not to make it look like this all
began in 1965. There was an evolution to the company,
and the organization. Along with the evolution of certain
terms which (more or less) followed suit. The non-profit
religious status in 1970 happened at the time when Paul
was writing and releasing the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad books
where he explains some history of Eckankar. Especially
about the "The Mahanta" & the "Living Eck Master". The
latter terms were added retroactively, I believe, and with
some other "more modern" (post-1965) Eckankar" terms
to some of Paul's earlier writings. It appears significant,
to me, to consider the propagation of the term "Mahanta"
in, and around, 1970. This is the one "unique" feature
of Eckankar compared to other paths - the terms - along
with the "Living Eck Master" title (especially the spellings
& Eckankar Inc. definition of those terms). There would
be legal considerations to take into account with change
in status for any company, I presume. I suspect that, for
certain legal purposes Eckankar was forced to define it-
self. Mark those last four words.
Etznab
Etznab
Maybe you are right about it being an "inner teaching",
but I doubt this is the real source of Eckankar Inc. and all
that matters. See what I'm saying?
The word "Eckankar" is a symbol which can be written
and illustrated easily enough. However, with most words
& names for things, the word / name are NOT THE SAME
as the things they suggest. The word "apple" is not what
one uses to make a pie. The word wind doesn't usually go
blowing around off the page when you write it. So, there is
a vast amount of room for particular meanings attributed to
"Eckankar" based upon the personal experiences of various
individuals. The Eckankar "organization" and "corporation",
whatever, represent a collective group of individuals and it
can not truly represent the personal experiences - inner &
outer - of its every member, IMHO. This is the detriment &
illusion behind associating religious experiences & defining
members of religions with names. The "name" is a limited &
imperfect representation of something that must belong to &
be experienced by individual awareness in order to realize
more fully and completely what that particular "symbol" can
only suggest.
The corporate entity, the organization, the social groups
and consciousness' surrounding and defining the spiritual
paths in existence today are individual interpretations that
attempt to explain things. When it moves to the legal levels,
words can take on levels of "power" otherwise unwarranted.
The illusions become stronger because they are enforced
and made to appear that much more solid and tangible. It
not only happens with religions, in my opinion, it happens
with governments, too. Words can get in the way, tangle
things up and even slow progress. Especially when people
are hypnotized by the prospect of having to define them -
as if to choose their incarnations.
Remember the phrase from Ghost Busters? "Choose
the form!" (?)
Well, maybe this is exactly what is happening when
people try to define experiences. Even what might be
called "inner" experiences. People are choosing forms
and paying the price :) (Big Smile)
I liked the point about "ECK as an inner teaching.
However, the source & what matters are not always
in the hands of one person to "sell" to another, IMO.
But this is what happens with organized religion. It
matters what form it is in according to individuals &
how they choose to present it. Can the presentation
match what is being presented, though, especially
when "Eckankar" (as some describe it) is an inner
experience (and personal at that) being presented
in outward form?
No need to answer any questions, but I had to
illustrate things this way because I see question
marks serving for symbolic "doorways" between
inner and outer. I can't go "through the door" for
others. I can only "show" them the door.
Etznab
d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com
Etznab,
I agree, Paul continued to evolve the teaching from the beginning. I
don't think he ever tried to solidify it, and so it was always
changing for him. He was always introducing new elements and terms,
right up until the month he passed on.
Yes, Dr. Bluth was a student of Radha Soami Beas Satsang, where Sawan
Singh taught. I believe he started studying with Paul in 1967. There
were a number of Kirpal's students as well as Beas Satsang students
that joined Eckankar back in those days. I don't think it was every a
large percentage, however.
And if we talk about criticisms, I think a good example is to see how
many ECKists criticize those who leave Eckankar. I've never understood
this, but it appears to be human nature. So, the fact that Kirpal's
followers and Kirpal himself would criticize Paul is not surprising.
My only point is that Paul did his best to keep the relationship
friendly and open, but realized that the feeling wasn't mutual. Then,
all of the nice things he said about Kirpal were used to suggest that
he was ripping Kirpal off somehow, when in fact those comments are a
reflection of his desire to promote and elevate Kirpal to the public.
The lesson he seemed to learn was that this is very difficult. Most
people, especially leaders, in religion have a hard time keeping
friendships with those in other religions, and it is the worst with
people staying friends with those who leave the religion that they
love. Paul was never like this, but I think he realized that it was
best to let Eckankar stand on its own two feet and not try to prop it
up by associating it with other teachings. If people naturally felt
goodwill to everyone, this might not be necessary.
Doug.
d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com
Etznab,
I agree with this. People start making the organization the "thing"
when it is really the inner reality that is what it is all about.
If you see how Paul wrote about Eckankar, he rarely was talking about
the organization. He was almost always referring to the great
universal source. This wasn't just an idea. It was something
experienced and lived.
He often called the headquarters his "distribution center." That's the
way he saw it. It wasn't the source nor even the main part of
Eckankar.
All of that has changed, as it does with all movements as they grow.
Most of what today is considered the classical period of Sufism (1000
to 1500 AD) is when the most famous of Sufi writings and teachings
appeared. However, even before this, there was a Sufi teacher who
summed up a lot of your sentiments when he said this:
Sufism used to be a teaching with no name. Now it has become a
name with no teaching.
He was obviously referring to the way that people focus more and more
on the outer form, and the outer form becomes the religion. This,
however, completely misses the true spiritual path.
One of the things I learned from Paul is that the organization is
never the light that leads the path, it is always the shadow that
follows it.
Thanks.
Doug.
Rich
As I've mentioned before I also heard from a friend of Gail's that after
Gail finally got home after Paul's translation, she discovered a paper still
in Paul's typewriter, with information that indicated that Darwin was the
new Living ECK Master.
As I recall Gail was very much opposed to being the one to make the call on
who would be Paul's successor. And yes, she also received a confirmation in
the dream state, as well as from many of the 8th initiates. So it was really
all these that prompted her, against her initial resistance, to be the one
to hand the blue carnation to Darwin on Oct 22, 1971.
> Also, Darwin and Gail were married over a year afterwards, not just
> several months. But more importantly, Gail barely knew Darwin before
> Paul passed on. She had met Darwin a few times at seminars with Paul,
> but they were basically strangers.
From an interview in the ECK World News July 1973,
Gail:
"When Darwin came into the position he now holds I didn't know him
as an individual at all. Even though he had gone to London with Paul
and gone to many of the seminars I really wasn't on a personal basis
with him and so at first I was apprehensive and wondering if I could be
flexible enough to work with Darwin as much as I could with Paul."
I heard that Paul had to threaten to sue Kirpal in order to get his "Tiger's
Fang" manuscript back. So it went beyond just asking for it back. Perhaps
this was the cause of the end of their friendship? "The Tiger's Fang" was
first printed in 1967 so that could indicate that it was 1966 when it was
finally returned by Kirpal. Again this threatened suit info is from the same
source I mentioned above which, out of respect for the confidence of their
having shared with me, will remain unidentified. So FWIW this is 'hearsay'.
Still it seems to be a possible explanation.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com
Rich, I had the good fortune of listening to the tape that Gail
recorded shortly after Darwin was announced as the new Living ECK
Master. She wanted to preserve her memories for posterity.
She talked about Paul picking his successor and told him that this was
his job and she wasn't going to do it if something happened to him. He
apparently wrote down what Gail called a "short list" of possible
names, but never made a final choice.
So, Gail did have Paul's short list, but she still insisted that she
wasn't going to pick which one from that list it should be.
It was only when Paul came to her in a dream and told her Darwin was
to be his successor and that she would have this dream confirmed by
two others, only then could she accept this as Paul's decision. Both
Patti Simpson and Millie Moore confirmed Darwin as the next Master.
There were many others who knew as well, but Patti and Millie were the
ones who confirmed it for Gail.
>
> > Also, Darwin and Gail were married over a year afterwards, not just
> > several months. But more importantly, Gail barely knew Darwin before
> > Paul passed on. She had met Darwin a few times at seminars with Paul,
> > but they were basically strangers.
>
> From an interview in the ECK World News July 1973,
>
> Gail:
> "When Darwin came into the position he now holds I didn't know him
> as an individual at all. Even though he had gone to London with Paul
> and gone to many of the seminars I really wasn't on a personal basis
> with him and so at first I was apprehensive and wondering if I could be
> flexible enough to work with Darwin as much as I could with Paul."
Thanks for this quote. I didn't remember this, but it is a perfect
quote.
Rich, the only time that Paul threatened to sue Kirpal was in a letter
he sent shortly before he translated. It wasn't about the Tiger's
Fang, it was about Kirpal's repeated public statements that Kirpal had
initiated him and that Paul was denying it. Paul never denied it.
Kirpal was mistaken.
Etznab showed me a quote from Kirpal where he mentions that Paul asked
for the manuscript back (in 1966) and that he sent it back to Paul as
he requested. So, there doesn't seem to have been any issues with Paul
getting it back once he asked for it.
Doug.
> ...
>
> read more »
Etznab
Doug,
I thought that last paragraph was an excellent
way to put it.
And liked what the Sufi teacher said, too.
Etznab
Rich
Well... as I said, it was hearsay. Maybe this person got it wrong, or maybe
they know more. It was a passing conversation but I though it important and
reliable enough to write down some notes so I wouldn't forget exactly what
was said.