Doug explains Twitchell's creations

[Etznab]

"[...] I don't think Paul had a problem with taking Kirpal's name out, because Paul had only put Kirpal's name in so that Kirpal would accept them. But Paul didn't want to rewrite the books, so he went through and made the fewest changes
possible. By this time, Paul was no longer trying to gain anything through his
association with Kirpal or Sant Mat. He decided to start out in a new direction, without riding on their coattails, you might say. And since Kirpal
had already rejected The Tiger's Fang, why would he leave Kirpal's name in? It
would only bring criticism and compaints from Kirpal.

"Paul fictionalized his accounts, because he was an experienced writer and knew
that stories were far more effective than lectures. Paul set himself up as
simply a seeker, in The Tiger's Fang, because he knew from experience that
people learn very differently from those who come across as authorities, than
from someone who they can identify with, who is describing a personal experience. He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country,
because this was a much more effective and interesting way of communicating,
than simply pontificating.

"Later on, Paul wrote ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, where he tried to
establish himself as an expert on the field of Soul Travel, which he pulled
together from many different teachings, along with his own experiences and
workshops he had taught. Later yet, he added elements of religious overtones,
such as in the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad I and II, because he knew that there were
many who related to the religious experience and that approach.

"Paul was just trying to go after all different levels of consciousness, and all
different viewpoints. Anyway, that's how I see it."

Doug.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/cHzE0Cdcfy4/M6ZJAPyvTNsJ

[Etznab]

This, from a person who wrote the book called "The Whole Truth, The Spiritual legacy of Paul Twitchell" And a person who (along with Harold Klemp) reviewed files and manuscripts in the Paul Twitchell archive.

In response to Doug's book, the widow of Paul Twitchell wrote, in part:

"... I thought, finally, someone got the whole thing right... The point now is, Doug, you are the one who has taken Paul's work and put it in the proper perspective. Thank you so much!"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/xn8Oc5ls4mQ/kODZsjAwKCEJ

Doug has already, in so many words, admitted the ideas of Paul Twitchell using other peoples writings ... as if the Eck Masters were doing the speaking ... and also the idea of Paul Twitchell making an audiotape to "impersonate" Rebazar Tarzs. This third example "Paul fictionalized his accounts ... ." is evidently another indication of the way that Doug sees things. Perspectives that, perhaps, Gail was on board with because she knew about how Paul created Eckankar.

[Etznab]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 6:26:53 PM UTC-6, Etznab wrote:

"[...] He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country,

because this was a much more effective and interesting way of communicating,

than simply pontificating. [... .]"

Can Kinpa spell BINGO? How about BAZINGA!

[Henosis Sage]

RE:

"Later yet, he added elements of religious overtones, such as in the
Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad I and II, because he knew that there were many who
related to the religious experience and that approach.

"Paul was just trying to go after all different levels of consciousness,
and all different viewpoints. Anyway, that's how I see it."
Doug.

That's an odd thing to say "later", because Twitchell was always religious.

Jan 1964
"The individual self of man becomes a co-worker of God, not a part of the
unity of Him, in the sense of being one with the divine source anyway,
for we are dwelling in body of God, but we have the freedom of movement
and of choice inside this framework of the Almighty." [...]

"In a study of the lives of saints from all religions I found for certain
that those who followed the philosophical concepts laid down here were
closer to God than those who strived for oneness with Him.
This should certainly prove something to anyone interested in bilocation."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPQTNyNHh2UG9xakk/view?usp=sharing


or the God-Eaters?

........... The cabalists named their

hierarchy in an order which closely resembles the God-Eaters. Madame

Blavatsky was inside spiritual city Agam Des years ago, but she named

her occult leaders, the White Brotherhood, for reasons of her own. The

early Sufis knew something of the truth of the secret teachers. Plato

called them the shadowy people. Frater X (L Ron Hubbard]

writes of a similar group called

the Green Robe monks in South America. Master Kirpal Singh spoke

briefly of these masters when he took me through the several invisible

worlds, in 1957. The story of this trip has been recorded in my book "The

Agam Des is one of the seven spiritual cities on this globe. Another

spiritual city, Shambulla is also located in India; two others in South

America, one in Guatemala, Spain and Africa. Brown Landone has given

some treatment to these spiritual cities in South America in his books

which have become rare since his passing several years ago."


or this:

Years later while in Paris visiting my half-sister who was studying art, I found her seriously

interested in an eastern adept, Sudar Singh, of Allahabad, India, who taught the way to the

higher consciousness was via bilocation. Fortunately, the two of us were able to follow him to

India and lived for a year in his ashram learning much about out-of-the-body-travelling.

During the following years I studied every feasible bilocation theory known, made some trips

abroad to the Orient where I read manuscripts, talked with adepts, gurus and holy men on the

subject and practiced all the techniques which were learned about just to see what they were

like.

After Sudar Singh passed on, I went through a series of studies under various teachers, similar

to Meyer Baba's career, for he had nineteen during his chela period; these were mainly Bernard

of England, Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in Maryland, and Kirpal Singh, of Delhi,

India, to name a few. Each are a specialist in his own spiritual teachings.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPRDdONEJhSUV6SVk/view?usp=sharing


So "Bernard" of England, who started sending out discourses in the 1940s I
believe, is noted by Paul Twitchell as one of his MAIN teachers equivalent
with Kirpal, Premananda and Sudar Singh.

---

RE:
"By this time [1966] Paul was no longer trying to gain anything through his

association with Kirpal or Sant Mat. He decided to start out in a new
direction, without riding on their coattails, you might say. And since
Kirpal had already rejected The Tiger's Fang, why would he leave Kirpal's

name in? It would only bring criticism and complaints from Kirpal."

Which means at one point Twitchell was trying gain an advantage through his associating himself with Kirpal Singh. From early on in Jan 1964 Twitchell
wrote an article advert referring to KS in the article when he was on tour
in the USA at the time. Asking KS to approve the TTF book and see if it could be printed in India cheaply in Dec 1963 was seeking an advantage from Kirpal.

Kirpal had some valid complaints with Twitchell 'riding on his coat tails' without
asking - especially in his dealings at the CPF where he gave lectures from 1965.
I doubt if KS was totally open with Twitchell what he thought about various things. I suspect he never gave Paul a direct answer and strung him out a bit.
(but I don't know for sure)

It was said by Kirpal and others that Twitchell was using Kirpal's
'teachings' in his workshops at the CPF, and he often mentions Kirpal
in his articles and promos in magazines new age newspapers, and also in
his early Eckankar booklets and Discourse.

I don't think Paul doing this was any big deal or serious, as he could well
have honestly believed that it was all fine with Kirpal Singh - but after
being rebuffed finally in 1966 (?) by Kirpal in some Ruhani newsletter that went about it is fine and makes sense to no longer mention Kirpal Singh AS IF
he is supportive of Twitchell and his teachings.

The thing is, Twitchell already had a Sudar Singh character in use, and he
could quite easily mention KS by name for historical accuracy if he wanted without causing any offense to anyone. He was perfectly entitled to say he was
a student initiate from x to y; and then left - whatever he wanted.

It doesn't mean that he also had to redact ALL the other people's names as well, does it?

It doesn't mean PT has to erase Kirpal Singh, Hubbard, Premananda, Bernard,
Bhagat Singh Thind, Theosophy, Brown Landone, Haanel, Goldsmith etc entirely
from his history.

That's over-kill. imho.

By 1968 it had become Rebazar Tarzs, Eck Master, dictating the teachings to him:

"Following a brief visit, to India [said to be 1951], however, Rebazar
Tarzs began to appear to him regularly, dictating a series of books
which today form the 'LITERARY BASIS OF ECKANKAR.'"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/tfp_LXV_BYk/lC2iIwwECgAJ


Cheers

[Henosis Sage]

RE:

"He created the dialog with Rebazar Tarzs, in The Far Country,
because this was a much more effective and interesting way of communicating,
than simply pontificating.

"Later on, Paul wrote ECKANKAR, The Key to Secret Worlds, where he tried to
establish himself as an expert on the field of Soul Travel, which he pulled
together from many different teachings, along with his own experiences and
workshops he had taught."

Then the question is, why did he not simply say so?

It wouldn't be a major drama to insert a disclaimer - the story would still read the same and be just as "effective and interesting".

Instead Twitchell was saying something very different himself:

"Rebazar Tarzs was DICTATING a series of books which today form the 'LITERARY BASIS OF ECKANKAR.'"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/tfp_LXV_BYk/lC2iIwwECgAJ

Darwin Gross sure believed differently about PT and RT than what Marman says.

Now this may well be what was known inside Paul's "inner circle" ala Gail,
and Patti and who then told Marman XYZ decades later - but it surely was not
known by anyone else who was reading TKTSW or the SKS books or the Discourses
which all maintained the very same story about Sudar Singh and RT and the Eck
teachings.

Marman also says Klemp means something completely different than it reads to the normal person about Twitchell and where the eck writings came from.

I am not convinced Marman is that reliable - or that everything said by Gail,
Patti, Marge, or others should be taken as a given.

They all had their various biases and limited knowledge back then.

cheers

[Henosis Sage]

In 1968 IMSIAF eckankar was often referred to as a path to God.
The teachings were coming through guided by Rebazar Tarzs mainly
He was an eck master, first known as such in the book IMSIAF.
The SKS was going out as Discourses at this time, late 1968.

Now Twitchell only had two eck masters adepts in SS & RT as teachers.

Supposedly 14 years younger at 40 than he thought/really was in 1963, by
1970 Twitchell was claiming in articles his age looked to be in his late
thirties.

"an enigma" and "Messiah of the New age" etc.

I guess people were very enthusiastic.

cheers