Re: Some things I learnt from the Ananai (July 1956)
Kinpa
> Regarding:
> The Ananai (July 1956) - The original of IMSIAF Chapter 11http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.eckankar/browse_frm/thread/c66b...
>
> =========================
>
> First of all ... that researching for historical documents can be a
> lot of FUN, and exciting, and fulfilling.
>
> Secondly, that there is quite some interest about Paul and his older
> writings online.
>
> This is contrary to a view held by some I have heard who seem to think
> that it is all boring and a waste of time, or that anything one needs
> to know can be found on the *inner*.
>
> Of course, these people seem oblivious to the obvious that Paul
> Twitchell was known as a Master Compiler specifically for going out
> and researching the historical PHYSICAL documents on earth, and not on
> the inner planes! :)
>
> MARKET FOR PAUL T MATERIALS
> There are lots of records available for previous sales on various
> sites of PT related materials, articles, books, and documents. A chap
> on ebay even has a Paul Twitchell specialty Store, and a Scientology
> History Store. Some PT items are for sale for and have sold for as
> much as US$400 !!!
>
> We have a have an original copy of the Kentucky Who's Who coming soon.
> It's amazing what's out there now, as opposed to just 3 years ago
> say.
>
> So I have been wondering that maybe the local High Initiates who go in
> to cull out all the old books that have been donated to the local
> Eckists via the Eck Centre by people [ say when a family member has
> passed away] before anyone else gets a chance to see them or choose
> one for themself, aren't being taken so that curious eyes don't get to
> see them,[ and thus the HI is a dutiful protector of the faithful] but
> instead it is possible that some could be doing a healthy business on
> the side selling second hand books to the unfaithful? LOL - Nah, just
> kidding of course.
>
> Hey, call be a skeptic and a realist, but not a cynic. :)
>
> Anyway, a few other things ..
>
> TIMING
> It's July 1956, a few months lead time and the [letter] article was
> probably received by Ananai-Kyo by March, a month for sea-mail, and a
> month of editing say and it's January 1956.
>
> Paul would not have been in Ruhani Satsang for more than about 6
> months - given other timings we know of. [ when was the exact month KS
> was in USA]
>
> It's a good article imho. Not bad for a "beginner" in Ruhani to be
> writing about their teachings/beliefs like this, imho. Is that what
> this is? Or is it Paul writing about what he already accepted as being
> True then?
>
> WRITING STYLE
> Paul has a distinct writing style and phraseology that is there in
> 1956. This article "The Science of Morality" reads really well to me.
>
> It struck me that the title was one thing, and yet most of the article
> spoke about Love, and yet love was not in the title. I sort of notice
> this a lot by Paul ... he has some very interesting ways of giving
> things a HEADLINE.
>
> This is important to me, because this is another aspect of Paul's
> training and experience as a writer and salesman-ad copy writer coming
> thru in his spiritual writings [imho it is- clear as day ]
>
> Marketing is one of my areas of experience and interest as is writing
> for websites, so this sort of thing I find particularly of interest,
> and gives an insight into Paul's approach and why he does things in a
> particular way as opposed to another. There are both practical reasons
> and spiritual reasons why things end up as they are imho.
>
> Paul seems clearly to be writing this as an individual, and not in an
> official capacity under Ruhani Satsang, whilst acknowledging that is
> what his affiliation/identification was with.
>
> SAT NAM - SUGMAD
> There is a marked difference in the article of 1956 and the chapter 11
> in IMSIAF regarding the words SAT NAM, and SUGMAD.
>
> I can recall some talks about a variation in "spiritual planes and
> resident Lords" here over the years between Paul and the Radhasoami
> groups. But as I wasn't aware of much about Radhasoami I never got
> into that aspect of discussions here.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i havent read IMSIAF in about 20 years, but as i understand it the
meanings of sat Nam between both Eckankar and Ruhani satsang are quite
similar, Sat Nam being the ruler of Sach Khand, but not the Godhead
Itself...the Radhasoami versions of the path sort of contradict
themselves in a way...Eckankar probably does too, in the same way, by
naming the "nameless", the Anami, both higher and more pure than Sat
Nam (in the impression i get anyways) Eck names It Sugmad, Rai Salig
Ram named It Radhasoami...not certain if kirpal used the same name or
used a different one for the Godhead...
> But it appears to me that there is some large variation between what
> SAT NAM referred to in 1956 under Ruhani Satsang, and what SUGMAD
> refers to in 1967/68 under Eckankar.
>
> The article still works either way. Though I could be mis-
> understanding what SAT NAM meant back then, and thinking about it as
> SAT NAM within Eckankar cosmology.
>
> OK .. that's enough of me,
> cheers Sean
Etznab
> On Feb 6, 12:05 pm, Kinpa <kinpaconqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RE
>
> > > SAT NAM - SUGMAD
> > > There is a marked difference in the article of 1956 and the chapter 11
> > > in IMSIAF regarding the words SAT NAM, and SUGMAD.
>
> > > I can recall some talks about a variation in "spiritual planes and
> > > resident Lords" here over the years between Paul and the Radhasoami
> > > groups. But as I wasn't aware of much about Radhasoami I never got
> > > into that aspect of discussions here.
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>
>
> > i havent read IMSIAF in about 20 years, but as i understand it the
> > meanings of sat Nam between both Eckankar and Ruhani satsang are quite
> > similar, Sat Nam being the ruler of Sach Khand, but not the Godhead
> > Itself...the Radhasoami versions of the path sort of contradict
> > themselves in a way...Eckankar probably does too, in the same way, by
> > naming the "nameless", the Anami, both higher and more pure than Sat
> > Nam (in the impression i get anyways) Eck names It Sugmad, Rai Salig
> > Ram named It Radhasoami...not certain if kirpal used the same name or
> > used a different one for the Godhead...
>
>
> Hi Kinpa,
>
> I'll find a quote later, but my understanding was that SAT NAM means
> "nameless word" or "god's nameless name" but he has a name. :)
>
> and that SAT PURUSHA is the Ruler [Lord] of the 7th plane in
> Radhasoami and Sikhism, the teachings of Nanak being what mainly
> inspired Shiv Dayal Singh as far as identifying with outer writings.
>
> This is what I am referring to -- that the words being used between
> the two paths are different in their PRIMARY most common meanings.
> [ Indian-Hindi languages being what they are needing to be considered,
> as they can have many words for the same thing from place to place and
> time to time -- ]
>
> eg a Sikh page states
> The words "Sat" and "nam" mean that "god's existence is the utmost
> reality" and that "god has a name and thereby does exist".
>
> Sean:
> Sat Nam is not a Ruler, nor a Lord, within Nanak's line. Another way i
> have heard of it is as "Nameless Word" or highest form of the Voice,
> the L&S of God, the EK, the ECK.
>
> SAT NAAM—Name given to the Primal Sound Current (Ek-Ankar) as
> emanating from Sat Purush, the first manifestation of the Absolute
> God, an imageless abstraction without attributes. SAT PURUSH—The
> presiding God-Power (the first and...http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/gloss.htm
>
> as in Ek Onkar is how Nanak also said it, EKANKAR is how Kirpal Singh
> expressed it, and Eckankar is how Paul expressed IT, or coined the
> term.
>
> In the later process, the words *Sat Nam* seem to have become the
> Ruler of the 5th Plane, as per the Eckankar Dictionary.
>
> This to me, as I said before, appears to be *a marked difference*
> between 1956 and 1967 as far as Paul T goes.
>
> [ Because what Ruhani or RSSB's or the Sikhs do is their concern, not
> mine. ]
>
> I think that's pretty clear, and obvious. Isn't it?
>
> Or am I missing something here?
>
> Thanks Sean
Adding 2 cents.
In "Sat Nam" the second part appears to be short for "name".
The first part suggests "true, imperishable". Also "being" and
"existing". Search all dictionaries for "sat" @
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
The word appears to be Sanskrit. (Perhaps, the word "sat" in
Tamil suggests the number "six".)
BTW. The word "nam" appears to suggest "to bow" or "incline".
As does "nama", in Tamil. ("nama", in Sanskrit, is associated
with "name" - according to the link)
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
Only Eckankar uses "Sugmad", from what I have seen. This
word doesn't show up anyplace else pre-1965 Eckankar - as
far as I can tell at this point. The Sugmad plane (according to
Eckankar) appears to have been redefined over the years too.
IMO.
Noteworthy is the Worlds of ECK chart in Eckankar Lexicon
where SUGMAD is the chant for the ATMA LOK. The ruler of
ATMA LOK is SAT NAM.
See: A Cosmic Sea of Words, THE ECKANKAR LEXICON,
p. 232, Copyright 1998]
OK. So it was more than 2 cents :)
Etznab
Kinpa
> On Feb 6, 12:05 pm, Kinpa <kinpaconqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RE
>
> > > There is a marked difference in the article of 1956 and the chapter 11
> > > in IMSIAF regarding the words SAT NAM, and SUGMAD.
>
> > > I can recall some talks about a variation in "spiritual planes and
> > > resident Lords" here over the years between Paul and the Radhasoami
> > > groups. But as I wasn't aware of much about Radhasoami I never got
> > > into that aspect of discussions here.
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>
>
> > i havent read IMSIAF in about 20 years, but as i understand it the
> > meanings of sat Nam between both Eckankar and Ruhani satsang are quite
> > similar, Sat Nam being the ruler of Sach Khand, but not the Godhead
> > Itself...the Radhasoami versions of the path sort of contradict
> > themselves in a way...Eckankar probably does too, in the same way, by
> > naming the "nameless", the Anami, both higher and more pure than Sat
> > Nam (in the impression i get anyways) Eck names It Sugmad, Rai Salig
> > Ram named It Radhasoami...not certain if kirpal used the same name or
> > used a different one for the Godhead...
>
so we're saying the same thing are we not?
Etznab
> There is a marked difference in the article of 1956 and the chapter 11
> in IMSIAF regarding the words SAT NAM, and SUGMAD.
>
> I can recall some talks about a variation in "spiritual planes and
> resident Lords" here over the years between Paul and the Radhasoami
> groups. But as I wasn't aware of much about Radhasoami I never got
> into that aspect of discussions here.
>
> SAT NAM referred to in 1956 under Ruhani Satsang, and what SUGMAD
> refers to in 1967/68 under Eckankar.
>
> The article still works either way. Though I could be mis-
> understanding what SAT NAM meant back then, and thinking about it as
> SAT NAM within Eckankar cosmology.
>
> OK .. that's enough of me,
> cheers Sean
I learned that Paul Twitchell was most probably,
and beyond a doubt, a "former chela" of Kirpal
Singh. I believe that Harold Klemp also used the
words "former chela", as well.
The timeline, however, and Paul Twitchell's time
with Kirpal Singh is still uncertain. In my opinion.
Doug Marman had alluded to "two years" I think.
Even though Paul Twitchell had friendly relations
with Kirpal Singh for several years after 1957.
According to Doug, I believe, the manuscripts for
Dialogues With The Master and the Tiger's Fang
were written in 1956 and 1957 respectively, from
what Doug "had seen".
The 1956-1957 time period is very close to when
Paul Twitchell reportedly experienced some form
of "God Consciousness" as both books (the form
of them I have access to) appear to suggest.
Which brings me back to one of my two primal
questions about recorded Eckankar history. Who,
or what, is / was Rebazar Tarzs?
What I learned from the Ananai article - whether
writing for Ruhani Satsang, or himself - in that
article Paul Twitchell does not mention Rebazar
Tarzs or Sudar Singh. (Two Eck Masters which
official Eckankar Website suggest he met about
1935 and 1951 respectively.
Apparently, I would have to imagine, Paul Twitchell
kept Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs a secret from
Kirpal Singh. Seeing that Eckankar history has the
two of them giving initiations to Paul Twitchell and I
have yet to find either one mentioned by Kirpal S &
Sant Mat / Shabda Yoga history & lineages.
The Eck Master Darwin Gross - via Bernadine Burlin -
(1970s?) reportedly had the following to say:
"Sri Darwin Gross, the Living Eck Master of Eckankar
has stated that he knows for a fact that Paul Twitchell
only had two Eck Masters during his earthly stay here;
the Tibetan Rebazar Tarzs and Sudar Singh, and no
one else. They were the only Masters to initiate Paul
Twitchell."
--Bernadine Burlin, Personal Secretary to Darwin Gross [16]
http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
Was it a secret? Eck Masters guiding Paul Twitchell
during his involvement with Self-Revelation compound,
Scientology, Kirpal Singh and others? Or, were those
two names Paul T. associated with the "Inner Master"
that was guiding him? An "Inner Master" without any
physical bodily forms? Without any physical history
of persons by those names? The latter assumptions
(IMO) could explain the phenomena of Rebazar Tarzs
other Eck Masters giving quotes that match authors
whose books Paul Twitchell had read and / or that he
was familiar with. IMO, an "Inner Master" could bring
to one's attention words and sayings from books and
other people - stored in physical memory - as a form
of spiritual guidance.
Paul Twitchell did appear to write about a kind of
"Inner Master" in the 3rd-last paragraph of that
Ananai article and 3rd-last paragraph of IMSIAF,
Chapter 11. The two paragraphs are basically the
same, except for some capitalisations in Ananai
that are not present in IMSIAF. I'll quote the 1956
Ananai version (according to the translation from
the link on this thread), since it was the former.
"It is this special attitude of balancing the mind, in
meditation, to dwell upon the two-fold aspect of the
great Deity, Light and Sound, that shows man where
love can be placed. For Light and Sound is the Master
within. Therefore the living Master is a symbol of the
greater One, and to love the inner Master is the high-
est form of all love."
I liked the use of "symbol" in connection with the
living Master. The first part(s) of the article(s) talk
about a "living master", but it was near the end of
them where the "highest form of all love" appears.
It was in connection with "inner Master".
The Eckankar version does not capitalize the "M"
in the word "master". Perhaps not even once in the
whole article. This does not "appear to be" the case
with the 1956 version. Not that it really matters a
whole lot either way.
I think this is a very good thread and I congratulate
the person who found an earlier copy of Eckankar's
In My Soul I Am Free book, Chapter 11, from that
1956 Japanese magazine source. I especially liked
the emphasis of "inner master" & the word "symbol"
to describe "living master". I can't think of any better
words to describe what I imagine Paul Twitchell was
writing about there. Both sources (IMO) did a good
job. Both versions described something interesting.
It doesn't appear to make much difference to me
whether Ruhani Satsang or Eckankar appear. And
whether Sat Nam or "Sugmad" appear. The mean-
ings for "living master" and "inner master" are very
clear regardless. That, to me, is the most important
part. In my opinion, it's not about one religion versus
another. In my opinion, that is beside the point. Can
we agree on this?
Etznab
Etznab
http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
we (everybody) agree on this? If not. Why not?
Etznab
Kinpa
i dont disagree at all...and i think that PT continued to use the
concept of symbol, though (and im working from memory here, not at all
certain) he may also have used the term matrix (no idea if that term
was edited in later) as was included in many of his writings, i see
them both as meaning the very same thing, the expression of soul's own
creative imagination (as one aspect within the whole) creating an
image, a matrix, that the Eck can fill with the Master, Master Power
however you want to put it, not simply a creation that springs to life
in the form of a teacher, but is actually our own self (as i believe
Ford Johnson sees it) but with that as merely a starting point, where
the Master can appear in and of Itself, which is from what ive read
over they years, the Sugmad, using that piece of It's eye, that was
put in each soul, the spark of life if you will, to view us on earth
and guide us through the form of the inner Master, who is also an
actual individual soul at the very same time, thats just my personal
opinion of it/how it works for me...IMO Rebazar Tarzs is an actual
being, not a made up substitute for another, though i cant state that
i am certain that he was born with that particular name either, but i
dont believe he was any other famous spiritual figure or
guru...perhaps there was really just nothing written about him, it may
not seem likely to some, but it certainly isnt impossible either, he
can be rather elusive :o) the article was an interesting read, thanks
for posting Sean~!
Kinpa
> quotes I gave above show they are quite "different" in what the words
> Sat Nam refers to in each teaching.
>
> No ? :)
>
> and for me it isn;t an important issue personally, as it is know that
> all these rules planes vary to some degree, even in Paul's own
> writings from here to there.
>
> cheers
>
> .
i understand your point, however, all is one, therefore the
differences one perceives in them are the differences that one places
there, not necessarily actual differences that simply are...and then
there is the fact that Sat Nam is beyond words, so the differences are
also merely differences in each person's wording of the concept of Sat
Nam, as i see it they arent at all quite different, but rather quite
similar...just a difference of opinion or POV i suppose...
Etznab
> sense or a semantics sense, especially given we are talking *india*
> here and they are waaaaaaay out there when it comes to making up names
> and new words etc.
>
> Though one of the difficulties I have with online discussions is not
> having conversations stick within the original *framework* in which
> they began, where inner stuff gets blended into outer stuff as if they
> are sorta the same thing when they aren't.
>
> It's like people could have a discussion about their understanding of
> Sat Nam as per eckankar, and their understanding of this being on the
> Soul Plane. and how the whole inner planes sort of works regarding
> that.
>
> Or they can have a discussion about the physical mundane topic of
> semantics found in the written teachings of different paths and the
> words they select to represent different ideas or things- and what
> those words actually mean in the context of those different paths.
>
> But blending the two only leads to trouble and non-stop confusions
> about what the *discussion* is actually about. It ends up going no
> where basically. Seen it happen 10 thousand times over the years.
> Bought the T-shirt. :)
>
> cheers
Getting back on topic. What does it mean when both versions
include: "Nameless in form and ideal is this great ruler of the
seventh plane world, and all the universes."?
Is Sat Name the ruler of the seventh plane in Ruhani Satsang?
Is "Sugmad" the ruler of the seventh plane in Eckankar?
What about this? A slip of Paul Twitchell's pen (memory)?
Etznab
Kinpa
> sense or a semantics sense, especially given we are talking *india*
> here and they are waaaaaaay out there when it comes to making up names
> and new words etc.
>
> Though one of the difficulties I have with online discussions is not
> having conversations stick within the original *framework* in which
> they began, where inner stuff gets blended into outer stuff as if they
> are sorta the same thing when they aren't.
>
> It's like people could have a discussion about their understanding of
> Sat Nam as per eckankar, and their understanding of this being on the
> Soul Plane. and how the whole inner planes sort of works regarding
> that.
>
> Or they can have a discussion about the physical mundane topic of
> semantics found in the written teachings of different paths and the
> words they select to represent different ideas or things- and what
> those words actually mean in the context of those different paths.
>
> But blending the two only leads to trouble and non-stop confusions
> about what the *discussion* is actually about. It ends up going no
> where basically. Seen it happen 10 thousand times over the years.
> Bought the T-shirt. :)
>
> cheers
they have a shirt? is it cool?? ;oD
Kinpa
where did you get that definition of Sugmad(as ruler of the 7th
plane)? was that from a book or the article that Sean posted? i hadnt
noticed it, and dont recall ever seeing it, thus my reason for asking,
i wouldnt mind looking it over...
Etznab
"where did you get that definition of Sugmad (as ruler
of the 7th plane)? was that from a book or the article that
Sean posted? i hadnt noticed it, and dont recall ever
seeing it, thus my reason for asking, i wouldnt mind
looking it over..."
******************************************************************
In My Soul I Am Free, by Brad Steiger, Chap.11, 6th paragraph:
"This is the source of all - the absolute! This is where we
dispense with all, and face the great reality. The name we
give to this deity in Eckankar is the Sugmad [< in italics].
Nameless in form and ideal is this great ruler of the seventh
plane world, and all the universes. He controls all, gives life
to every living atom that moves through the millions of worlds.
All is under this magnificent soul. His voice is the living word.
His body is the light of the Worlds!"
Ananai article, July 1956 (a recent translation):
"This is the source of all-the Absolute! This is where we
dispense with all, and face the great Reality. The name
we give to this Deity, in Ruhani Satsang, is SAT NAM.
Nameless in form and ideal is this great ruler of the seventh
plane world, and all the universes. He controls all, gives life
to every living atom that moves through the millions of worlds.
All is under this magnificent Soul. His voice is the Living Word.
His body is the light of the Worlds!"
Kinpa
ah-HA~! i see now why i havent seen it before (or remembered it)
Etznab
I forgot to give a link to the Ananai article.
See Science of Morality parts 1 & 2 @
Kinpa
Etznab
The book? Dialogues With The Master, Chapter 5: THE TRUE MEANING OF LOVE - starting at about p. 27.
I suggest the 1956 article was "refitted" for the 1970 book Dialogues With The Master on account of the words SUGMAD and ECKANKAR missing within the 1956 Ananai version ... AND the Ananai version was written by: Member Ruhani Satsang of America, U.S.A. - Paul Twitchell and NOT Rebazar Tarzs! As a matter of fact, the Ananai version (written by Paul Twitchell) in 1956 had:
"[...] The name we give to this Deity, in Ruhani Satsang, is SAT NAM. [... .]" - Ananai (1956) - p. 15
The Dialogues With The Master version (written by Paul Twitchell via "Rebazar Tarzs") has:
"[...] The name we give to this Deity is the SUGMAD. [... .]" - DWTM (1970 - 8th Printing, 1983), p. 27
Other examples include:
Ananai:
"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of SAT NAM, are put into a single ideal and called God for the sake of those without imagination, or hope of knowing God. This is what we love at this stage of our development. Call it God, Reality or Radha Soami. Anything for the sake of identification. - Ananai (1956), p. 16
DWTM:
"Light and Sound, the basic elements in the body of ECKANKAR, are blended into a single form and called 'God' for the sake of those without imagination. This is what we love at this step of our development. Call it God, Reality, the SUGMAD, or whatever you desire for the sake of identification." - DWTM (1970 - 8th Printing, 1983), p. 28
Basically speaking, Chapter 5 for Dialogues With The Master looks (to me) like a rewrite of that 1956 article submitted to Ananai by Member Ruhani Satsang of America, U.S.A. - Paul Twitchell.
***
*Ref# 41391720-9294-143108-1956 Ananai vs. 1968 IMSIAF vs 1970 DWTM
Etznab
Maybe the Eck Master Rebazar Tarzs was Paul Twitchell's alter ego? Or literary device?
pee.tee....@gmail.com
pee.tee....@gmail.com
Ananai article, published in 1956
1956-07 The Ananai Magazine - ANANAI-KYO Info - Twitchell Ruhani Satsang article
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPM2JoVUVZV3dIbEk/view?usp=sharing