Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Letters to Gail???
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Etznab
Jun 8, 2017, 8:02:07 AM6/8/17
to
As early as 1962 Paul Twitchell began writing some personal letters to his (then) future wife.
"[...] We met in the Seattle Public Library in 1963 [should be 1962?]. She had a part-time job there while she attended the University of Washington as a full-time student. I was reading a tremendous amount of books each evening and I would trade them in for a fresh batch on the next night. [...] I went right to work to educate her in ECK, and every day for two years I wrote her a two-page letter on Eckankar. [... .]"
[Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p. 65]
As a form of recorded history the reliability of personal letters rates higher than some other sources. However, I do wonder about the original letters that Paul sent to Gail and what changes (edits) occurred subsequent to his death. I am not the only person to comment on this subject. Example:
"After Twitchell's demise [d. 1971], the cover-up concerning his involvement with Kirpal Singh continued unchecked. The posthumous publication of Twitchell's manuscripts were all thoroughly scanned. No work published after his death mentioned the name Kirpal Singh, even though the original manuscript, Letters to Gail, Volumes One and Two (a collection of letters written by Twitchell to his wife before their marriage in 1964), contained several references to the Ruhani Satsang master. For example, an excerpt from the original letter of May 30, 1963, reads: 'Kirpal Singh used the readings from the Sikh Bible and a few from the Indian scriptures in his nightly meetings. . .' Yet, the revised letter replaces the name Kirpal Singh with 'Sudar Singh' while leaving the main content of the letter intact. [18] It appears almost certain that the original Letters to Gail makes no reference to 'Sudar Singh' whatsoever. Oddly, though, the present (revised) letters contain numerable references to him. It can be assumed that whenever the name 'Sudar Singh' appears in Letters to Gail it is a cover name for Kirpal Singh, whose name appears in the original. [19]
"[...] [19] I owe this information to David Stewart, who served as both Editor of the Eck World News and consulting Editor for Illuminated Way Press. He personally worked on the editing of Letters to Gail, enabling him to see the original, untampered manuscript. [... .]"
[Based on: http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html]
"[...] We met in the Seattle Public Library in 1963 [should be 1962?]. She had a part-time job there while she attended the University of Washington as a full-time student. I was reading a tremendous amount of books each evening and I would trade them in for a fresh batch on the next night. [...] I went right to work to educate her in ECK, and every day for two years I wrote her a two-page letter on Eckankar. [... .]"
[Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p. 65]
As a form of recorded history the reliability of personal letters rates higher than some other sources. However, I do wonder about the original letters that Paul sent to Gail and what changes (edits) occurred subsequent to his death. I am not the only person to comment on this subject. Example:
"After Twitchell's demise [d. 1971], the cover-up concerning his involvement with Kirpal Singh continued unchecked. The posthumous publication of Twitchell's manuscripts were all thoroughly scanned. No work published after his death mentioned the name Kirpal Singh, even though the original manuscript, Letters to Gail, Volumes One and Two (a collection of letters written by Twitchell to his wife before their marriage in 1964), contained several references to the Ruhani Satsang master. For example, an excerpt from the original letter of May 30, 1963, reads: 'Kirpal Singh used the readings from the Sikh Bible and a few from the Indian scriptures in his nightly meetings. . .' Yet, the revised letter replaces the name Kirpal Singh with 'Sudar Singh' while leaving the main content of the letter intact. [18] It appears almost certain that the original Letters to Gail makes no reference to 'Sudar Singh' whatsoever. Oddly, though, the present (revised) letters contain numerable references to him. It can be assumed that whenever the name 'Sudar Singh' appears in Letters to Gail it is a cover name for Kirpal Singh, whose name appears in the original. [19]
"[...] [19] I owe this information to David Stewart, who served as both Editor of the Eck World News and consulting Editor for Illuminated Way Press. He personally worked on the editing of Letters to Gail, enabling him to see the original, untampered manuscript. [... .]"
[Based on: http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html]
Etznab
Jun 8, 2017, 8:33:36 AM6/8/17
to
Suppose for a moment that Gail's letters told a different story about Eckankar, about Sudar Singh and / or about Rebazar Tarzs, etc. Was that the case?
Before the book form of LTG I believe some of them were distributed to members in the form of a discourse, or something, which might suggest the letters were shared during the time of Darwin Gross.
Does anyone remember the "sale" between Gail and Darwin / Eckankar? and where Gail was released from all liability for the writings and given half a million dollars, etc?
Personally I see the years (1970s) leading up to the transfer of power (1981) and dismissal of Darwin Gross (1983) as pieces to a story connecting the dots to the truth vs. fiction of Eckankar history. In short, it looks clear beyond a doubt that certain things were changed and certain people knew about it!
I suggest the reason so many arguments persisted throughout the years about the Eckankar writings, history, dogma, etc. happened on account of what people knew and more or less refused to tell / share. Even dialogues continuing to this day with the spin and detraction away from certain subjects that might lead to the actual truth ... truths that others know, but want to control the dissemination of; wording it in their own particular ways.
Klemp & Marman have both written numerous paragraphs about topics of controversy that others have discussed and argued about for years. Harold Klemp and Doug Marman would have been in a position to know - given their time and experience with the organization - and access to Paul Twitchell's personal letters and manuscripts.
So what was known, but not necessarily told in plain language at first? (coming out slowly only over a course of many years? and amid online discourses between members, ex-members and the public?
I would submit there are potentially a number of particulars that perhaps some individuals well know, but still don't want to discuss, talk about or have enter the public domain. One problem I see is that truth is part of the spiritual teachings just as much, if not even more, than fiction, pseudo history and religion! And I think people will have that truth in spite of those who don't think it has anything to do with the "spiritual" teachings.
Kinpa
Jun 14, 2017, 9:47:28 PM6/14/17
to
0 new messages